Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
by
Matthew P. Wilcox
Approved:
_________________________________________
Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Thesis Adviser
Copyright 2013
By
Matthew P. Wilcox
All Rights Reserved
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF SYMBOLS ......................................................................................................... x
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... xii
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
CONTENT ......................................................................................................... 3
2.2
NUMERICAL METHODS................................................................................ 6
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.6.2
3.1.2
3.2
3.3
iii
3.3.2
3.4
3.5
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.5.2
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.5.1-1: Turbulent Flow Input ............................................................................... 15
Table 2.5.1-2: Calculation of Turbulent Parameters ....................................................... 15
Table 3.1.1-1: Horizontal Cylinder Model Input ............................................................. 26
Table 3.1.1-2: Horizontal Cylinder Model Fluid Density ............................................... 26
Table 3.1.1-3: Mesh Validation for Horizontal Cylinder Model ..................................... 31
Table 3.1.2-1: Vertical Plate Model Input ....................................................................... 33
Table 3.1.2-2: Vertical Plate Model Fluid Density.......................................................... 33
Table 3.1.2-3: Mesh Validation for Vertical Plate Model ............................................... 37
Table 3.2-1: Laminar Flow Model Input ......................................................................... 39
Table 3.2-2: Laminar Flow Model Fluid Density............................................................ 39
Table 3.2-3: Mesh Validation for Laminar Flow Model ................................................. 41
Table 3.3.1-1: Turbulent Flow Without Heat Transfer Model Input ............................... 43
Table 3.3.2-1: Turbulent Flow With Heat Transfer Model Input .................................... 48
Table 3.3.2-2: Turbulent Flow With Heat Transfer Model Fluid Density ...................... 48
Table 3.3.2-3: Mesh Validation for Turbulent Flow With Heat Transfer Model ............ 50
Table 3.4.1-1: Gas Mixing Tank Model Input ................................................................. 52
Table 3.4.1-2: Mesh Validation for Gas Mixing Tank Model ......................................... 55
Table 3.4.2-1: Bubble Column Model Input ................................................................... 57
Table 3.4.2-2: Mesh Validation for Bubble Column Model ........................................... 61
Table 3.4.3-1: Population Balance Model Input .............................................................. 62
Table 3.4.3-2: Bubble Size Distribution Surface Tension of 0.072 N/m ..................... 64
Table 3.4.3-3: Bubble Size Distribution Surface Tension of 0.0072 N/m ................... 65
Table 3.5.1-1: Pool Boiling Model Input......................................................................... 66
Table 3.5.1-2: Pool Boiling Model Fluid Density ........................................................... 67
Table 3.5.1-3: Mesh Validation for Pool Boiling Model................................................. 70
Table 3.5.2-1: Subcooled Flow Boiling Model Input ...................................................... 71
Table 3.5.2-2: Subcooled Flow Boiling Model Fluid Properties..................................... 72
Table 3.5.2-3: Boiling Model Study Case Input .............................................................. 73
Table 3.5.2-4: Boiling Model Study Case Results .......................................................... 76
Table 3.5.2-5: Inlet Condition Study Case Input ............................................................. 78
v
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.2-1: Control Volume Schematic for Pressure Correction Equation .................... 7
Figure 2.2-2: Control Volume Schematic for Momentum Equation ................................. 8
Figure 2.2-3: Control Volume Schematic for Energy Equation ........................................ 8
Figure 2.5-1: Transition from Laminar to Turbulent Flow.............................................. 12
Figure 2.6-1: Two-Phase Flow Patterns .......................................................................... 16
Figure 2.6-2: Baker Flow Pattern .................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.7-1: Boiling Heat Transfer Regimes ................................................................. 20
Figure 3.1.1-1: Horizontal Cylinder Schematic ............................................................... 25
Figure 3.1.1-2: Temperature (K) ..................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.1.1-3: Density (kg/m3) ....................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.1.1-4: Velocity Vectors (m/s) ............................................................................ 28
Figure 3.1.1-5: Interference Fringes Around a Heated Horizontal Cylinder ................... 29
Figure 3.1.1-6: Dimensionless Temperature at = 30 ................................................... 30
Figure 3.1.1-7: Dimensionless Temperature at = 90 ................................................... 30
Figure 3.1.1-8: Dimensionless Temperature at = 180 ................................................. 31
Figure 3.1.2-1: Vertical Plate Schematic ......................................................................... 32
Figure 3.1.2-2: Temperature (K) ..................................................................................... 34
Figure 3.1.2-3: Velocity Vectors (m/s) ............................................................................ 34
Figure 3.1.2-4: Interference Fringes Around a Heated Vertical Plate ............................. 35
Figure 3.1.2-5: Dimensionless Temperature for Various Prandtl Numbers .................... 36
Figure 3.1.2-6: Dimensionless Temperature for Various Prandtl Numbers (Fluent) ...... 37
Figure 3.2-1: Laminar Flow Schematic ........................................................................... 38
Figure 3.2-2: Velocity Magnitude ................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.2-3: Radial Velocity (m/s) ................................................................................. 40
Figure 3.2-4: Temperature (K) ........................................................................................ 40
Figure 3.2-5: Wall Shear Stress ....................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.3.1-1: Turbulent Flow Without Heat Transfer Schematic................................. 42
Figure 3.3.1-2: Velocity Magnitude ................................................................................ 42
Figure 3.3.1-3: Wall Shear Stress .................................................................................... 44
Figure 3.3.1-4: Radial Velocity (m/s) ............................................................................. 44
vii
Figure 3.3.1-5:
................................................................................................... 44
Figure 3.3.1-6: Results for a Mass Flow Rate of 0.5 kg/s ............................................... 45
Figure 3.3.1-7: Results for a Mass Flow Rate of 1.5 kg/s ............................................... 45
Figure 3.3.1-8: Turbulent Kinetic Energy (m2/s2) ........................................................... 46
Figure 3.3.1-9: Production of Turbulent Kinetic Energy ................................................ 46
Figure 3.3.2-1: Turbulent Flow With Heat Transfer Schematic ...................................... 47
Figure 3.3.2-2: Temperature (K) ..................................................................................... 47
Figure 3.3.2-3: Radial Velocity (m/s) .............................................................................. 49
Figure 3.3.2-4: Velocity Magnitude ................................................................................ 49
Figure 3.3.2-5: Wall Shear Stress .................................................................................... 49
Figure 3.4.1-1: Gas Mixing Tank Schematic................................................................... 51
Figure 3.4.1-2: Gas Volume Fraction .............................................................................. 53
Figure 3.4.1-3: Gas Volume Fraction at Jet Centerline ................................................... 53
Figure 3.4.1-4: Liquid Velocity Vectors (m/s) ................................................................ 54
Figure 3.4.1-5: Gas Velocity Vectors (m/s)..................................................................... 55
Figure 3.4.2-1: Bubble Column Schematic ..................................................................... 56
Figure 3.4.2-2: Gas Volume Fraction .............................................................................. 58
Figure 3.4.2-3: Liquid Velocity Vectors (m/s) ................................................................ 59
Figure 3.4.2-4: Gas Velocity Vectors (m/s)..................................................................... 60
Figure 3.4.2-5: Gas Volume Fraction (0.10 m/s)............................................................. 60
Figure 3.4.3-1: Gas Volume Fraction with PBM ............................................................ 62
Figure 3.4.3-2: Liquid Velocity Vectors with PBM (m/s)............................................... 63
Figure 3.4.3-3: Gas Velocity Vectors with PBM (m/s) ................................................... 64
Figure 3.5.1-1: Pool Boiling Schematic .......................................................................... 66
Figure 3.5.1-2: Vapor Volume Fraction .......................................................................... 68
Figure 3.5.1-3: Liquid Velocity Vectors (m/s) ................................................................ 69
Figure 3.5.1-4: Vapor Velocity Vectors (m/s) ................................................................. 69
Figure 3.5.1-5: Volume Fraction of Vapor on Heated Surface ....................................... 70
Figure 3.5.2-1: Subcooled Flow Boiling Model Schematic ............................................ 71
Figure 3.5.2-2: Case 1 - Temperature (K) ....................................................................... 73
Figure 3.5.2-3: Case 1 - Liquid Volume Fraction ........................................................... 73
viii
ix
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A
Cp
D/Dt
Dh
dbw
hfg
turbulent intensity
length (m)
Na
perimeter (m)
pressure (Pa)
density (kg/m3)
Qw
rs
suppression factor
time (s)
temperature (K)
Twall
Tsat
Tsub
viscosity (kg/m-s)
del operator
scalar quantity
xi
xj
xi
ABSTRACT
Various fluid flow and heat transfer regimes were investigated to provide insight
into the phenomena that occur during subcooled flow boiling. The theory of each
regime was discussed in detail and followed by the development of a numerical model.
Numerical models to analyze natural convection, laminar flow, turbulent flow with and
without heat transfer, two-phase flow, pool boiling and subcooled flow boiling were
created. The commercial software Fluent was used to produce the models and analyze
the results. Different modeling techniques and numerical solvers were employed in
Fluent depending on the scenario to generate acceptable results. The results of each
model were compared to experimental data when available to prove its validity.
Although numerous heat transfer and fluid flow phenomena were analyzed, the
primary focus of this research was subcooled flow boiling. The impact that different
boiling model options have on liquid volume fraction was examined. Three bubble
departure diameter models and two nucleation site density models were studied using the
same inlet conditions. The bubble departure diameter models examined did not show
any relationship with liquid volume fraction; however, the Kocamustafaogullari-Ishii
nucleation site density model tended to predict a greater liquid volume fraction, meaning
less vapor production, than the Lemmert-Chawla nucleation site density model.
A second study on how inlet conditions impact the liquid volume fraction during
subcooled flow boiling was explored.
temperature and mass flow rate were increased or decreased relative to a base case value.
The difference in liquid volume fraction between scenarios was compared and
relationships relating the inlet conditions with respect to liquid volume fraction were
developed. Overall, the fluid temperature had the greatest impact on liquid volume
fraction, the wall heat flux had the second greatest impact and the mass flow rate had the
smallest impact.
xii
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the 19th century, the worlds standard of living has greatly increased
primarily due to the generation and distribution of electricity. Over 80% of the worlds
electricity production is generated by converting thermal energy, from a fuel source, into
electrical energy. The Rankine Cycle is a common energy conversion process that burns
fuel and generates steam which is used to spin an electric generator.
Electricity
production involves several engineering processes but is primarily based around heat
transfer and fluid flow.
Coal, oil, natural gas and uranium are some of the different fuel sources
available to electrical power plants. The fuel source in focus in this research is uranium
or nuclear fuel. Nuclear power plants harness energy released during fission to heat the
water that flows over the uranium fuel rods. The energy transfer mechanisms within a
nuclear reactor involve the three major forms of heat transfer; conduction, convection
and radiation. The fluid flow through the reactor is complex because of intense energy
transfer and phase change. In Pressurizer Water Reactors, the water flowing through the
reactor is prevented from bulk boiling because it is highly pressurized; however, a small
amount of localized boiling does occur which is known as subcooled flow boiling. This
research focuses on the convective heat transfer and fluid flow phenomena that occur
during subcooled flow boiling. Specifically, topics on turbulence, two-phase flow and
phase change are discussed.
Subcooled boiling occurs when an under-saturated fluid comes in contact with a
surface that is hotter than its saturation temperature. Small bubbles form on the heated
surface at preferential locations called nucleation sites. The number of bubbles that form
is heavily dependent on fluid temperature, pressure, mass flow, heat flux and
microscopic features of the surface. After the bubbles form on the heated surface, they
detach and enter the bulk fluid. When this occurs, saturated vapor is dispersed in a
subcooled liquid which is where the term subcooled boiling originates.
1.1
turbulence, boiling and two-phase flow. Determining the amount of voiding that occurs
during subcooled flow boiling has become a topic of great interest in recent years. A
number of mechanistic models for the prediction of wall heat flux and partitioning have
been developed. One of the most commonly used mechanistic models for subcooled
flow boiling was developed by Del Valle and Kenning. Their model accounts for bubble
dynamics at the heated wall using concepts developed initially by Graham and
Hendricks for wall heat flux partitioning during nucleate pool boiling. Recently, a new
approach to the partitioning of the wall heat flux has been proposed by Basu et al. The
fundamental idea of this model is that all of the energy from the wall is transferred to the
adjacent liquid.
evaporation while the remainder goes into the bulk liquid. [1]
In addition to the development of mechanistic heat transfer and partitioning
models, focus has been placed on accurately modeling three of the most impactful
parameters in subcooled flow boiling. These parameters are the active nucleation site
density (Na), bubble departure diameter (dbw) and bubble departure frequency (f). The
two most common nucleation site density models were developed by Lemmert and
Chwala and Kocamustafaogullari and Ishii. Both of these models are available in
Fluent.
Many correlations have been developed to determine the bubble departure
diameter. Tolubinsky and Kostanchuk proposed the most simplistic correlation which
evaluates bubble departure diameter as a function of subcooling temperature.
Kocamustafaogullari and Ishii improved this model by including the contact angle of the
bubble. Finally, Unal produced a comprehensive correlation which includes the effect of
subcooling, the convection velocity and the heater wall properties. All three of these
bubble departure diameter correlations are available in Fluent.
The most common bubble departure frequency correlation for computational
fluid dynamics was developed by Cole. It is based on a bubble departure diameter
model and a balance between buoyancy and drag forces. The Cole bubble departure
frequency model is available in Fluent.
2
Recently, the use of population balance equations have been used to improve the
modeling of subcooled flow boiling by determining how swarms of bubbles interact
after detaching from the heated surface. This technique was recommended by Krepper
et. al. [2] and investigated by Yeoh and Tu [1]. Population balance equations have been
introduced in several branches of modern science, mainly areas with particulate entities
such as chemistry and materials because they help define how particle populations
develop in specific properties over time. Population balance equations are available in
Fluent; however, not in combination with the boiling model.
1.2
CONTENT
This research produced an investigation on subcooled flow boiling using Fluent.
Fluent is a widely accepted commercial computational fluid dynamics code that can
simulate complex heat transfer and fluid flow regimes. This thesis had three major
objectives. The first objective was to gain an understanding of the phenomena that occur
during subcooled flow boiling. The second objective was to determine how the boiling
model options described in Section 1.1 impact the liquid volume fraction at different
axial locations. The third objective was to evaluate how heat flux, fluid temperature and
mass flow rate impact the liquid volume fraction at different axial locations.
Due to its complexity, development of the subcooled flow boiling model was
performed in stages. With the expansion of each model, a more complicated fluid flow
or heat transfer scenario was analyzed. After each model was created, a mesh validation
was performed and the results were compared to known experimental data when
possible to validate the information generated by Fluent.
The first and simplest model created was for natural convection. The theory of
natural convection is described in Section 2.3 and the analytical modeling results are
presented in Section 3.1. Two natural convection geometries were analyzed. The first
was a horizontal cylinder suspended in an infinite pool and the second was a vertical
plate suspended in an infinite pool. The second model developed was for laminar flow.
The theory of laminar flow is described in Section 2.4 and the analytical modeling
results are discussed in Section 3.2. The third model developed was for turbulent flow.
3
The theory of turbulent flow is described in Section 2.5 and the analytical modeling
results are displayed in Section 3.3. Section 3.3 contains two turbulent flow scenarios;
turbulent flow without heat transfer and turbulent flow with heat transfer. The fourth
model developed was for two-phase flow with water and air. The theory of two-phase
flow is described in Section 2.6 and the analytical modeling results for the scenarios
analyzed are shown in Section 3.4. The first scenario is a gas mixing tank and the
second scenario is a bubble column. The final and most complex models created include
phase transformation (vaporization and condensation). Section 2.7 contains the theory
of boiling heat transfer with a subsection specific to subcooled boiling.
Section 3.5
presents the analytical results for the two models created; the first for pool boiling and
the second for subcooled flow boiling. A summary of the results and the conclusions
reached from the models developed herein is documented in Section 4.
This section discusses basic theory behind some common heat transfer and fluid
flow scenarios. It is meant to provide a brief introduction to the phenomena involved in
subcooled flow boiling.
2.1
GOVERNING EQUATIONS
Conservation equations are a local form of conservation laws which state that
mass, energy and momentum as well as other natural quantities must be conserved. A
number of physical phenomena may be described using these equations [3]. In fluid
dynamics, the two key conservation equations are the conservation of mass and the
conservation of momentum.
Conservation of Mass (continuity equation):
(
Conservation of Momentum:
( )
2.2
NUMERICAL METHODS
After the conservation laws governing heat transfer, fluid flow and other related
processes are expressed in differential form (Section 2.1), they can solved using
numerical methods to determine pressure, temperature, mass flux, etc. for various
circumstances and boundary conditions.
conservation principle and employs a physical quantity as its dependent variable that is
balanced by the factors that influence it. Some examples of differential equations that
may be solved through numerical methods are conservation of energy, conservation of
momentum and time-averaged turbulent flow. [4]
The goal of computational fluid dynamics is to calculate the temperature,
velocity, pressure, etc. of a fluid at particular locations within a system. Thus, the
independent variable in the differential equations is a physical location (and time in the
case of unsteady flows). Due to computational limitations, the number of locations (also
known as grid points or nodes) must be finite. By concentrating on a solution to the
differential equations at discrete locations, the requirement to find an exact solution is
avoided. The algebraic equations (also known as discretization equations) involving the
unknown values of the independent variable at chosen locations (grid points) are derived
from the differential equations governing the independent variable. In this derivation,
assumptions about the value of the independent variable between grid points must be
made. This concept is known as discretization. [4]
A discretization equation is an algebraic relationship that connects the values of
the dependent variable for a group of grid points within a control volume. This type of
equation is derived from the differential equation governing the dependent variable and
thus expresses the same physical information as the differential equation. The piecewise
nature of the profile (or mesh) is created by the finite number of grid points that
participate in a given discretization equation. The value of the dependent variable at a
grid point thereby influences the value of the dependent variable in its immediate area.
As the number of grid points becomes very large, the solution of the discretization
equations is expected to approach the exact solution of the corresponding differential
equation. This is true because as the grid points get closer together, the change in value
between neighboring grid points becomes small and the actual details of the profile
6
originates. If there are too few grid points (coarse mesh), the profile assumptions can
impact the solution results and the discretization equation solution will not match the
differential equation solution. To ensure that the discretization equation results are not
dependent on the profile assumptions, the solution should be checked for mesh
independence. [4]
One of the more common procedures for deriving discretization equations is
using a truncated Taylor series. Other methods include variational formulation, method
of weighted residuals and control volume formulation. The conservation equations in
Section 2.1 in discretized form are shown below:
Pressure Correction Equation (continuity equation) [4]:
[(
[(
) ]
[(
) ]
)]
(a)
(b)
(| |)
(|
|)
(| |)
(| |)
upwinding which was first proposed by Courant, Isaacson, and Rees in 1952. Other
options include QUICK, power law and third-order MUSCL.
2.3
NATURAL CONVECTION
Convection is the transport of mass and energy by bulk fluid motion. If the fluid
motion is induced by some external force, like a pump, fan, or suction device, it is
generally referred to as forced convection. If the fluid motion is induced by an internal
force such as buoyancy produced by density gradients, it is generally referred to as
natural convection. The density gradients can arise from mass concentration and or
temperature gradients in the fluid [5]. For example, in a system where a heated surface
is in contact with a cooler fluid, the cooler fluid absorbs energy from the heated surface
and becomes less dense. Buoyancy effects due to body forces cause the heated fluid to
rise and the surrounding, cooler fluid takes its place. The cooler fluid is then heated and
the process continues forming a convection cell that continuously removes energy from
the heated surface.
In nature, natural convection cells occur everywhere from oceanic currents to air
rising above sunlight-warmed land.
engineering applications such as home heating radiators and cooling of computer chips.
The amount of heat transfer that occurs due to natural convection in a system is
characterized by the Grashof, Prandtl and Rayleigh numbers.
Gr, is a dimensionless parameter that represents the ratio of buoyancy to viscous forces
acting on a fluid and is defined as:
(
)
( )
The Prandtl number, Pr, is a dimensionless parameter that represents the ratio of
momentum diffusivity to thermal diffusivity; and is defined as:
The Rayleigh number, Ra, is a dimensionless parameter that represents the ratio
of buoyancy to viscosity forces times the ratio of momentum diffusivity to thermal
diffusivity; and is defined as:
When the Rayleigh number is below a critical value for a particular fluid, heat
transfer is primarily in the form of conduction; when it exceeds the critical value, heat
transfer is primarily in the form of convection.
convection can either be laminar or turbulent. Rayleigh numbers less than 108 indicate a
buoyancy-induced laminar flow, with transition to turbulence occurring at about 109. [6]
In many situations, convection is mixed meaning that both natural and forced
convection occur simultaneously.
convection flow can be measured by the ratio of the Grashof and Reynolds numbers:
(
When this ratio approaches or exceeds unity, there are strong buoyancy
contributions to the flow. Conversely, if the ratio is very small, buoyancy forces may be
ignored.
10
2.4
LAMINAR FLOW
Fluid flow can be grouped into two categories, laminar or turbulent flow.
Laminar flow implies that the fluid moves in sheets that slip relative to each other and it
occurs at very low velocities where there are only small disturbances and little to no
local velocity variations. In laminar flow, the motion of the fluid particles is very
orderly and can be characterized by high momentum diffusion and low momentum
convection.
The Reynolds number is used to characterize the flow regime. The Reynolds
number, Re, is a dimensionless number that represents the ratio of inertial forces to
viscous forces; and is defined as:
The Reynolds number helps quantify the relative importance of inertial and
viscous forces for given flow conditions. For internal flow, such as within a pipe,
laminar flow occurs at a Reynolds number less than 2300.
The velocity profile of a laminar flow in a pipe can be calculated by [5]:
(
)(
The above two equations indicate that the velocity for laminar flow is related to the
square of the pipe radius and thus the flow profile is parabolic.
The energy equation for flow through a circular pipe assuming symmetric heat
transfer, fully developed flow and constant fluid properties is [5]:
[
This equation shows that convection due to flow is balanced by diffusion in the radial
and axial directions.
11
2.5
TURBULENT FLOW
In fluid dynamics, turbulence is a flow regime characterized by chaotic and
stochastic changes. Turbulent flows involve large Reynolds numbers and contain threedimensional vorticity fluctuations. The unsteady vortices appear on many scales and
interact with each other generating high levels of mixing and increased rates of
momentum, heat and mass transfer. Like laminar flows, turbulent flows are dissipative
and therefore depend on their environment to obtain energy. A common source of
energy for turbulent velocity fluctuations is shear in the mean flow; other sources, such
as buoyancy, exist too. If turbulence arrives in an environment where there is no shear
or other maintenance mechanism, the turbulence decays and the flow tends to become
laminar. [7]
In flows that are originally laminar, turbulence arises from instabilities at large
Reynolds numbers.
characterized by a Reynolds number greater than 4000. For flows with a Reynolds
number between 2300 and 4000, both laminar and turbulent flows are possible. This is
called transition flow. [7]
A common example of the transition from laminar flow to turbulent flow is
smoke rising from a cigarette [8].
where and
where
continuity and momentum equations and taking a time-average yields the time-averaged
continuity and momentum equations [9]. These are written in Cartesian tensor form as:
( )
( )
( )
[ (
)]
The two above equations are the Cartesian RANS equations for a twodimensional system. They have the same general form as the instantaneous NavierStokes equations, with the velocities and other solution variables now representing time13
averaged values. The RANS equations can be used with approximations based on
knowledge of the turbulent flow to give approximate time-averaged solutions to
the NavierStokes equations. An additional term (
stress, appears in the equation as a results of using the RANS method. [9]
One way that the Reynolds stress is evaluated in practice is through the k-
turbulence model. The k- model was first introduced by Harlow and Nakayama in
1968 [10]. The k- model has become the most widely used model for industrial
applications because of its overall accuracy and small computational demand. In the k-
model, k represents the turbulent kinetic energy and represents its dissipation rate.
Turbulent kinetic energy is the average kinetic energy per unit mass associated with
eddies in the turbulent flow while epsilon () is the rate of dissipation of the turbulent
energy per unit mass.
In the derivation of the k- model, it is assumed that the flow is fully turbulent,
and the effects of molecular viscosity are negligible. As the strengths and weaknesses of
the standard k- model have become known, modifications were introduced to improve
its performance. These improvements have helped create many, new, more accurate
models, among them, the realizable k- model which differs from the standard k- model
in two important ways. First, the realizable model contains an alternative formulation of
the turbulent viscosity. Second, a modified transport equation for the dissipation rate, ,
is derived from an exact equation for the transport of the mean-square vorticity
fluctuation. The term realizable means that the model satisfies certain mathematical
constraints on the Reynolds stresses, consistent with the physics of turbulent flow. [9]
2.5.1
equations in Table 2.5.1-2 [9] were used to determine the boundary condition inputs for
the turbulent flow models presented in Section 3.3.
14
Numerical Value
1.0 kg/s
0.03 m
0.001003 kg/m-s
998.2 kg/m3
0.09 [9]
Equation
Numerical Value
0.03 m
( )
( )
0.00070686 m2
1.41726 m/s
42314
0.0021 m
0.0422483
0.0053785 m2/s2
0.030859 m2/s3
Dissipation Rate ()
15
2.6
TWO-PHASE FLOW
Fluid flow that contains two or more components is referred to as multiphase
flow. The flow components can be of the same chemical substance but in different
states of matter such as water and steam, be of different chemical substances but the
same state of matter such as water and oil or finally be of different chemical substance
and different states of matter such as water and air. This section focuses on two-phase
flow involving water and air while Section 2.7 focuses on two-phase flow involving
water and steam.
Depending on the volume fraction of each component in the two-phase flow,
different flow patterns can exist. Understanding the two-phase flow pattern is important
because pressure drops and heat transfer rates are heavily impacted by the flow type.
The characteristic flow patterns for two-phase flow, in order of increasing gas volume
fraction from liquid to gas, are bubbly flow, plug flow, stratification flow, wavy flow,
slug flow, annular flow and spray flow. A schematic representation of each of these
flow patterns is shown in Figure 2.6-1 [11].
16
distributed in the liquid phase in the form of bubbles. This flow pattern occurs at low
gas volume fractions. Subcooled flow boiling is classified as bubbly flow. Slug flow is
when there are relatively large liquid slugs surrounded by vapor. This flow pattern
occurs at moderate gas volume fractions and relatively low flow velocities. Annular
flow is when the liquid phase is continuous along the wall and the vapor phase is
continuous in the core. This flow pattern occurs at high gas volume fractions and high
flow velocities. Although not considered to be a flow regime, flow film boiling is the
opposite of annular flow (the vapor phase is continuous along the wall and the liquid
phase is continuous in the core) and occurs when the heat flux is relatively large
compared to the mass flux. Film boiling is discussed further in Section 2.7.
The flow pattern of a system can be determined using the Baker flow criteria
shown in Figure 2.6-2 [11] if the gas volume fraction and mass velocity are known. For
example, if a two-phase flow consisting of air and water has a total mass velocity (air
plus water) of 0.10 x 106 lbm/hr-ft2 and a gas quality of 0.4, then flow will be annular.
2.6.1
single phase flows; however, the equations are more complicated and more numerous.
Two-phase flows are more difficult to solve due to the secondary phase and additional
phenomena that must be accounted for such as mass transfer and phase-interface
interactions (slip and drag). Three common multiphase flow models available in Fluent
are Volume of Fluid (VOF), Mixture and Eulerian, each with varying strengths and
computational demands.
The VOF model is the simplest and least computationally expensive of the three
multiphase models offered in Fluent.
immiscible fluids by solving a single set of momentum equations and tracking the
volume fraction of each fluid throughout the domain. All control volumes must be filled
with either a single fluid phase or a combination of phases. The VOF model does not
allow for void regions where no fluid of any type is present. The VOF method was
based on the marker-and-cell method and quickly became popular due to its low
computer storage requirements. Typical applications of VOF include stratified or freesurface flows such as the prediction of jet breakup, the motion of large bubbles in a
liquid, the motion of liquid after a dam break, and the steady or transient tracking of a
liquid-gas interface. [9]
The Mixture model is between the VOF and Eulerian multiphase models both in
complexity and computational expense. The Mixture model can analyze multiple phases
(fluid or particulate) by solving the momentum, continuity, and energy equations for the
mixture, the volume fraction equations for the secondary phases, and algebraic
expressions for the relative velocities. Like the VOF model, it uses a single-fluid
approach but has two major differences. First, the Mixture model allows for the phases
to be interpenetrating and therefore the volume fraction of a fluid in a control volume
can be equal to any value between zero and one. Second, the Mixture model allows for
the phases to move at different velocities, using the concept of slip. The Mixture model
is a good substitute for the full Eulerian model in several cases where a full multiphase
model may not be feasible or when the interphase laws are unknown or their reliability
can be questioned.
particle-laden flows with low loading, and bubbly flows where the gas volume fraction
remains low. [9]
The Eulerian model is the most complex and most computationally expensive
multiphase model offered in Fluent.
equations for each phase, and couples the equations through pressure and exchange
coefficients. With the Eulerian model, the number of secondary phases is limited only
by memory requirements and convergence behavior. The Eulerian model allows for the
modeling of multiple separate, yet interacting phases. The interacting phases can be
liquids, gases, or solids in nearly any combination.
interacting phases, typical applications of the Eulerian model are bubble columns, risers,
particle suspension, fluidized beds and boiling including subcooled boiling. [9]
2.6.2
helpful to know how the secondary phase (solids, bubbles, droplets, etc.) evolves over
time. Thus, a balance equation is required to describe the changes in the particle size
distribution over time, in addition to the momentum, mass, and energy balances already
employed. The additional balance equation is generally referred to as the population
balance equation.
The population balance model in Fluent implements a number density function to
account for the different sizes of the particle population.
properties (i.e., size, density, porosity, composition, etc.), different particles in the
population can be distinguished and their behavior can be described. [9]
The link between the population balance and boiling models has not been fully
developed in Fluent and is therefore not employed in the subcooled flow boiling model
discussed in Section 3.5.2. However, the population balance model is utilized to track
bubble size distribution within a bubble column (Section 3.4.3).
19
2.7
saturated vapor due to heat addition. It is normally characterized by a high heat transfer
capacity and a low wall-fluid temperature delta which is made possible by the generally
large energy absorption required to cause a phase change. These heat transfer properties
are essential in industrial cooling applications such as nuclear reactors and fossil boilers.
Because of its importance in industry, a significant amount of research has been carried
out to study the capacity and the mechanism of boiling heat transfer. There are two
basic types of boiling, pool boiling and flow boiling. If heat addition causes a phase
change in a stagnant fluid, then it is called pool boiling. If heat addition causes a phase
change in a moving fluid, then it is called flow boiling. Both types of boiling heat
transfer can be separated into four regimes, which are shown in Figure 2.7-1 [12].
[11].
The second regime of boiling, from point A to point C, is called nucleate boiling.
During this stage, vapor bubbles are generated at certain preferred locations on the
heated surface called nucleation sites. Nucleation sites are often microscopic cavities or
cracks in the surface. When the liquid near the wall superheats, it evaporates and a
20
significant amount of energy is removed from the heated surface due to the latent heat of
the vaporization which also increases the convective heat transfer by mixing the liquid
water near the heated surface. There are two subregimes of nucleate boiling that can
take place between points A and C. The first subregime is when local boiling occurs in a
subcooled liquid (subcooled boiling). In this situation, bubbles form on a heated surface
but tend to condense after detaching from it. The second subregime is when local
boiling occurs in a saturated liquid. In this case, bubbles do not condense after detaching
from the heated surface since the liquid is at the same temperature as the vapor.
Nucleate boiling is characterized by a very high heat transfer rate and a small
temperature difference between the bulk fluid and the heated surface. For this reason, it
is considered to be the most efficient form of boiling heat transfer. [11]
As the heated surface increases in temperature, more and more nucleation sites
become active. As more bubbles form at these sites, they begin to merge together and
form columns or slugs of vapor, thus decreasing the contact area between the bulk fluid
and the heated surface. The decrease in contact area causes the slope of the line in
Figure 2.7-1 to decrease until a maximum is reached (point C). Point C is referred to as
the critical heat flux and the vapor begins to form an insulating blanket around the
heated surface which dramatically increases the surface temperature when reached. This
is called the boiling crisis or departure from nucleate boiling. [12]
As the temperature delta increases past the critical heat flux, the rate of bubble
generation exceeds the rate of bubble separation. Bubbles at the different nucleation
sites begin to merge together and boiling becomes unstable. The surface is alternately
covered with a vapor blanket and a liquid layer, resulting in oscillating surface
temperatures. This regime of boiling is known as partial film boiling or transition
boiling and takes place between points C and D. [11]
If the temperature difference between the surface and the fluid continues to
increase, stable film boiling is achieved.
continuous vapor blanket surrounding the heated surface and phase change occurs at the
liquid-vapor interface instead of at the heated surface. During this regime, most heat
transfer is carried out by radiation. [12]
21
2.7.1
SUBCOOLED BOILING
Subcooled flow boiling occurs when a moving, under-saturated fluid comes in
contact with a surface that is hotter than its saturation temperature. Intense interaction
between the liquid and vapor phases occur and therefore the Eulerian multiphase model
is most appropriate for subcooled boiling because it is capable of modeling multiple,
separate, yet interacting phases.
The heat transfer rate from the wall to the fluid changes based on the amount of
vapor on the heated surface. Since the vapor area is constantly changing due to the
formation, growth and departure of bubbles, the use of a correlation is necessary. Del
Valle and Kenning created a mechanistic model to determine the area of the heated
surface influenced by vapor during flow boiling which is utilized by Fluent. When
modeling subcooled boiling, there are three parameters of importance that greatly impact
the liquid volume fraction; they are active nucleation site density (Na), bubble departure
diameter (dbw) and bubble departure frequency (f) [1].
As discussed previously, nucleation sites are preferential locations where vapor
tends to form and are usually cavities or irregularities in a heated surface. The number
of active nucleation sites per unit area is dependent on fluid and surface conditions. The
most common active nucleation site density relationship was developed by Lemmert and
Chwala. It is based on the heat flux partitioning data generated by Del Valle and
Kenning [1]:
[ (
)]
According to Kurul and Podowski, the values of m and n are 210 and 1.805,
respectively. Another popular correlation for nucleation site density was created by
Kocamustafaogullari and Ishii. They assumed that the active nucleation site density
correlation developed for pool boiling could be used in forced convective systems if the
effective superheat was used rather than the actual wall superheat. This correlation
accounts for both the heated surface conditions and the fluid properties [1]:
( )
(
22
( )
)
The bubble departure diameter is the bubble size when it leaves the heated
surface and it depends in a complex manner on the amount of subcooling, the flow rate,
and a balance of surface tension and buoyancy forces. Determining the lift off bubble
diameter is crucial because the bubble size influences the interphase heat and mass
transfer through the interfacial area and the momentum drag terms. Many correlations
have been proposed for this purpose; however, the following three are applicable for low
pressure, subcooled flow boiling. The first correlation was proposed by Tolubinsky and
Kostanchuk. It establishes the bubble departure diameter as a function of the subcooling
temperature [1]:
[
where
(
23
)]
)]
( )
{
The bubble departure frequency is the rate at which bubbles are generated and
detach from an active nucleation site. The most common bubble departure frequency
correlation for computational fluid dynamics was developed by Cole who derived it
based on the bubble departure diameter and a balance between buoyancy and drag
forces [1]:
24
3.1
NATURAL CONVECTION
Two natural convection scenarios were examined.
horizontal cylinder and the second was a heated vertical plate, both were submerged in
an infinite pool of liquid. These examples were chosen because of their simplicity,
because they are commonly found in nature and because they have been previously
studied and results are available for validation of the numerical computations.
3.1.1
HORIZONTAL CYLINDER
A cylinder with a constant surface temperature submerged in an infinite pool of
liquid at a lower temperature was analyzed. Energy passed from the slightly warmer
cylinder to the nearby fluid causing its temperature to increase and convection cells to
form. Figure 3.1.1-1 shows a schematic representation of the geometry and boundary
conditions used to model the horizontal cylinder. The top and bottom walls of the
rectangle represent inlet and outlet pressure boundaries respectively, with pressure
conditions set such that the fluid is stagnant until heated by the cylinder. The left and
right walls of the rectangle are slip boundaries to more accurately model an infinite pool.
See Table 3.1.1-1 for a detailed list of input parameters used.
Value
0.02 m
0.28 m
0.24 m
Planar
Transient
0.05 s
Pressure Based
Relative
-9.8 m/s2 (Y-direction)
Active
Laminar
Boussinesq
310 K
300 K
4182 J/kg-K
0.6 W/m-K
0.001003 kg/m-s
See Table 3.1.1-2
PISO
Least Square Cell Based
PRESTO!
Second Order Upwind
Second Order Upwind
Second Order Implicit
Temperature (K)
273
308
348
373
26
Figure 3.1.1-2 presents the liquid temperature field after 20 seconds of heating.
As the temperature increases, the fluid begins to rise due to buoyancy forces.
As the warm fluid rises, it loses energy to the surrounding bulk fluid which
reduces its buoyancy driving head until the rising fluid eventually stops. When the fluid
reaches its maximum elevation, it is pushed aside by the fluid travelling upwards below
it and begins to sink. This motion creates a small convection cell to the left and to the
right of the rising plume about 3 cm above the heated cylinder. This process continues
as long as there is a temperature gradient between the cylinder and the bulk fluid. If the
bulk fluid temperature increases, the buoyancy driving head will be smaller and the
convection cells will develop closer to the heated surface.
Figure 3.1.1-4 is a velocity vector plot that displays how the liquid moves within
the control volume. The two convection cells above the cylinder are clearly visible in
this figure which also reveals how the rising fluid is replaced by the cooler fluid
surrounding the cylinder.
28
(a)
(b)
distance from the heated surface, a is the cylinder diameter and Gr is the Grashof
number.
(Twall T), is the coefficient of thermal expansion and a is the cylinder diameter.
29
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
Mesh 1
19716
38688
0.01627
309.9239
993.1765
31
Mesh 2
23636
46400
0.01621
309.9531
993.1625
Difference
19.88 %
19.93 %
-0.37 %
0.01 %
0.00 %
3.1.2
VERTICAL PLATE
Single phase convection heat transfer around a vertical plate with a constant
representation of the geometry and boundary conditions used to model the vertical plate.
The top and bottom walls of the rectangle represent inlet and outlet pressure boundaries
respectively, with pressure conditions set such that the fluid is stagnant until the plate is
heated. The left and right walls of the rectangle are slip boundaries to more accurately
model an infinite pool. See Table 3.1.2-1 for a detailed list of input parameters used.
32
Value
0.18 m
0.01 m
0.20 m
0.13 m
Planar
Transient
0.05 s
Pressure Based
Relative
-9.8 m/s2 (Y-direction)
Active
Laminar
Boussinesq
310 K
300 K
4182 J/kg-K
0.6 W/m-K
0.001003 kg/m-s
See Table 3.1.2-2
PISO
Least Square Cell Based
PRESTO!
Second Order Upwind
Second Order Upwind
Second Order Implicit
Temperature (K)
273
308
348
373
33
The
34
(a)
(b)
35
Figure 3.1.2-4 shows that the experimental data and model solution have
isotherms that extend away from the plate and grow in distance from one another as they
get farther from the heated surface. This indicates that the model is in qualitative
agreement with experimental data.
Experimental data from Ostrach [15] was compared to the Fluent results to assess
the quantitative accuracy of the model. Figure 3.1.2-5 and Figure 3.1.2-6 display a
comparison of dimensionless temperature versus dimensionless distance for five
different Prandtl numbers. Figure 3.1.2-5a shows theoretical values and Figure 3.1.2-5b
compares some of the theoretical values to experimental data.
Dimensionless
(a)
(b)
36
Mesh 1
12310
23572
0.01376
309.8089
993.2319
37
Mesh 2
18081
35168
0.01380
309.7991
993.2365
Difference
46.88 %
49.19 %
0.29 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
3.2
LAMINAR FLOW
A steady state, axisymmetric, laminar flow model was developed. Figure 3.2-1
The
Fluid velocity within the pipe slowly decreases as distance from the pipe centerline
increases. Also, as the flow develops, the entrance effects dissipate, the velocity profile
becomes more parabolic until it reaches a steady state at about 45 cm from the entrance
which is in good agreement with well known entrance length calculations [5].
Table 3.2-1: Laminar Flow Model Input
Input
Value
Geometry
Pipe Diameter
Pipe Length
2D Space
Solver
Time
Type
Velocity Formulation
Gravity
Models
Energy
Viscous
Material Properties (Water)
Specific Heat
Thermal Conductivity
Viscosity
Density
Inlet Conditions
Pipe Wall Surface Temperature
Fluid Temperature
Fluid Velocity
Solution Methods
Scheme
Gradient
Pressure
Momentum
Energy
0.03 m
0.50 m
Axisymmetric
Steady
Pressure Based
Relative
-9.8 m/s2 (X-direction)
Active
Laminar
4182 J/kg-K
0.6 W/m-K
0.001003 kg/m-s
See Table 3.2-2
305 K
300 K
0.05 m/s
Coupled
Least Square Cell Based
Second Order
Second Order Upwind
Second Order Upwind
Temperature (K)
273
308
39
Another characteristic of laminar flow is the lack of mixing that occurs within the
fluid. The radial velocity within the pipe is basically zero and each fluid element
remains about the same distance from the centerline from entrance to exit. Figure 3.2-3
displays the radial flow velocity. As expected, the radial velocity for most of the pipe is
near zero and is less than 10-3 times the average axial velocity. Radial velocity is at a
maximum near the entrance of the pipe due to inlet boundary conditions and entrance
effects but these have a negligible impact on system as a whole.
The growth of the thermal boundary layer is shown in Figure 3.2-4 by the
40
(Mesh 1 in Table 3.2-3) to a second mesh with an increased number of finite volumes
(Mesh 2 in Table 3.2-3).
Mesh 1
26320
25353
0.079561
-0.003293
3.15925
304.6503
41
Mesh 2
31000
29970
0.079507
-0.003528
3.155022
304.6855
Difference
17.78 %
18.21 %
-0.07 %
7.12 %
-0.13 %
0.01 %
3.3
TURBULENT FLOW
3.3.1
The velocity profile of turbulent flow differs significantly in two ways compared
to the velocity profile of laminar flow (Figure 3.2-2). First, turbulent flow velocity
profiles are much flatter. Therefore, the fluid velocity doesnt decrease significantly
until close to the pipe wall. Second, entrance effects dissipate much quicker in turbulent
flow [5] and thus the fluid velocity reaches a steady state velocity profile in a shorter
distance. Figure 3.3.1-2 (turbulent flow) shows that flow reaches a steady profile about
10 cm from the pipe entrance. Figure 3.2-2 (laminar flow) shows that flow reaches a
steady profile about 45 cm from the pipe entrance.
Value
Geometry
Pipe Diameter
0.03 m
Pipe Length
0.50 m
2D Space
Axisymmetric
Solver
Time
Steady
Type
Pressure Based
Velocity Formulation
Relative
Gravity
-9.8 m/s2 (X-direction)
Models
Energy
Inactive
Viscous
Realizable k-
Turbulence Model
Near Wall Treatment
Enhanced
Turbulent Intensity
0.0422483 *
Inlet Conditions
Fluid Mass Flow Rate
1.0 kg/s
Material Properties (Water)
Density
998.2 kg/m3
Viscosity
0.001003 kg/m-s
Solution Methods
Scheme
Coupled
Gradient
Least Square Cell Based
Pressure
Second Order
Momentum
Second Order Upwind
Turbulent Kinetic Energy
Second Order Upwind
Turbulent Dissipation Rate
Second Order Upwind
* Calculation shown in Table 2.5.1-2.
43
Figure 3.3.1-3 displays the wall shear stress versus distance from the pipe
entrance.
The shear stress is very large at the pipe entrance and decays to the steady
state value after about 10 cm (same location where the velocity profile reaches steady
state). The large increase in shear stress at the beginning of the pipe (~1-2 cm from the
inlet) is caused by entrance effects.
velocity occurs near the pipe entrance. Figure 3.3.1-5 reveals that the greatest reduction
in axial velocity occurs near the pipe entrance which is necessary to conserve
momentum when radial velocity increases. Since shear stress is related to change in
velocity parallel to the wall (axial velocity), the increase in wall shear stress near the
pipe entrance is reasonable.
Figure 3.3.1-5:
44
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figures 3.3.1-6 and 3.3.1-7 prove that the maximum wall shear stress and the
maximum radial velocity are directly related to mass flow rate. At a certain distance
from the pipe entrance, the change in axial velocity as a function of position reaches zero
and the wall shear stress reaches a constant value. The pipe length necessary to reach a
steady state shear stress is also related to the mass flow rate. A larger mass flow rate
requires a greater distance to reach a constant shear stress.
Figure 3.3.1-8 shows that most of the turbulent kinetic energy is located near the
pipe wall due to shear stress.
The mesh
accuracy is proven adequate in Section 3.3.2 which utilizes the same model with the
addition of energy transfer from the pipe wall to the fluid.
46
3.3.2
representation of the geometry and boundary conditions used to model turbulent flow in
a pipe with heat transfer. The bottom line of the rectangle is an axis of rotation which is
used to simplify the geometry and represents the pipe centerline. The top line of the
rectangle is a no slip boundary with a constant heat flux and after the rotation becomes
the pipe wall. The left and right lines of the rectangle are the inlet and outlet areas
respectively, which when revolved, are circular. See Table 3.3.2-1 for a detailed list of
input parameters used.
47
Table 3.3.2-2: Turbulent Flow With Heat Transfer Model Fluid Density
Density (kg/m3)
999.9
994.1
974.9
Temperature (K)
273
308
348
48
Comparing the velocity magnitude, radial velocity and wall shear stress from
Section 3.3.1 to Section 3.3.2 proves that the addition of heat transfer in this case has a
negligible impact on the turbulent flow.
relatively small and does not create any localized phase change. Thus, the relationships
developed in Section 3.3.1 (impact mass flow has on shear stress and radial velocity) are
applicable to turbulent flows with heat transfer as long as the heat transfer rate is small.
To ensure that the mesh had no significant effect on the results, a mesh validation
was performed.
3.4
TWO-PHASE FLOW
3.4.1
Mesh 1
31031
31000
1.502045
317.6659
989.4604
1122.853
Mesh 2
35739
34624
1.500343
318.1447
989.2305
1119.909
Difference
15.17 %
11.69 %
-0.11 %
0.15 %
-0.02 %
-0.26 %
50
A transient, 2D Cartesian, gas mixing tank model was developed using the
Eulerian multiphase model. Figure 3.4.1-1 shows a schematic representation of the
geometry and boundary conditions used to model the gas mixing tank. The top line of
the rectangle is a pressure outlet and the left, right and most of the bottom lines of the
rectangle represent no slip boundaries. The red line on the bottom of the rectangle
represents a velocity inlet and is where the gas jet enters the tank to mix the liquid. See
Table 3.4.1-1 for a detailed list of input parameters used.
52
Value
0.30 m
0.60 m
0.02 m
Planar
Transient
0.001 s
Pressure Based
Relative
-9.8 m/s2 (Y-direction)
Inactive
Standard k-
Eulerian
Schiller-Nauman
Standard
0 m2/s2
0 m2/s3
0.40 m
0.5 m/s
0.001 m
998.2 kg/m3
0.001003 kg/m-s
1.225 kg/m3
1.7894E-05 kg/m-s
0.072 N/m
Phase Coupled SIMPLE
Least Square Cell Based
Second Order Upwind
QUICK
Second Order Upwind
Second Order Upwind
Second Order Implicit
The liquid and gas velocities displayed in Figure 3.4.1-4 and Figure 3.4.1-5,
respectively, are similar in trend and magnitude which indicates that the drag force
between the two phases is strong (slip ratio close to one). The maximum gas velocity
(1.593 m/s) is much greater than the inlet gas velocity (0.5 m/s); therefore, buoyancy
forces are significant. Figure 3.4.1-4 shows that there is a number of small eddies
created by the injected gas which provide a significant amount of mixing within the
liquid. These eddies are responsible for the even distribution of alloying elements
during the steel making process.
54
Mesh 1
30625
30256
1.539086
2.046923
3925.424
4775.512
1.000000
55
Mesh 2
36045
35644
1.453488
2.086285
3894.616
4732.633
1.000000
Difference
17.70 %
17.81 %
-5.56 %
1.92 %
-0.78 %
-0.90 %
0.00 %
3.4.2
BUBBLE COLUMN
A bubble column reactor is a tool primarily used to study gas-liquid reactions.
The apparatus is a vertical column of liquid with gas introduced continuously at the
bottom through a sparger. The bubble column contains gas dispersed as bubbles in a
continuous volume of liquid. Per Section 2.6, the flow is considered to be bubbly. The
gas introduced through the sparger provides mixing, similar to the gas mixing tank in
Section 3.4.1 but much less intense. This method of mixing is less invasive and requires
less energy than mechanical stirring. Bubble column reactors are often used in industry
to develop and produce chemicals and fuels for use in chemical, biotechnology, and
pharmaceutical processes.
A transient, 2D Cartesian, bubble column model was developed using the
Eulerian multiphase model. Figure 3.4.2-1 shows a schematic representation of the
geometry and boundary conditions used to model the bubble column. The top line of the
rectangle is a pressure outlet and the left and right lines of the rectangle represent no slip
boundaries. The bottom line of the rectangle signifies a velocity inlet and is where the
gas bubbles enter the column. See Table 3.4.2-1 for a detailed list of input parameters
used.
56
57
Value
0.10 m
0.75 m
Planar
Transient
0.001 s
Pressure Based
Relative
-9.8 m/s2 (Y-direction)
Inactive
Standard k-
Eulerian
Schiller-Nauman
Standard
0 m2/s2
0 m2/s3
0.50 m
0.05 m/s
0.005 m
998.2 kg/m3
0.001003 kg/m-s
1.225 kg/m3
1.7894E-05 kg/m-s
0.072 N/m
Phase Coupled SIMPLE
Least Square Cell Based
Second Order Upwind
QUICK
Second Order Upwind
Second Order Upwind
Second Order Implicit
Figure 3.4.2-2 is a comparison between the gas volume fraction 1 second and
5 seconds after gas has begun flowing through the bubble column. After 5 seconds, the
gas reaches the top of the liquid and causes the surface to change shape. Compared to
the initial liquid level, the level after 5 seconds is about 5 cm higher. The level increase
is known as gas holdup and is caused by phase drag forces and displacement.
Figure 3.4.2-2b reveals that most of the gas travels along the wall in a quasi-annular
fashion known as wall-peaking bubbly flow.
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.4.2-2: Gas Volume Fraction
After (a) 1 Second and (b) 5 Seconds
Figure 3.4.2-3 is a comparison between the liquid velocity vectors 1 second and
5 seconds after the gas has begun flowing through the bubble column. Distinct paths of
liquid movement, primarily along the walls, can be seen at both time points. Due to
buoyancy and phase drag forces, the largest liquid velocities coincide with the regions of
greatest gas volume fraction.
58
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
To ensure that the mesh had no significant effect on the results, a mesh validation
was performed. The mesh validation compared the results from the scenario with a gas
velocity of 0.05 m/s (Mesh 1 in Table 3.4.2-2) to a second mesh with an increased
number of finite volumes (Mesh 2 in Table 3.4.2-2). The results from the mesh
validation displayed in Table 3.4.2-2 prove that the results are mesh independent.
3.4.3
Mesh 1
7006
6750
0.625945
0.313947
4929.094
0.998733
Mesh 2
8785
8500
0.63157
0.308535
4920.58
1.00000
Difference
25.39 %
25.93 %
0.90 %
1.72 %
-0.17 %
0.13 %
population balance model (PBM) with three discrete bubble sizes so that bubble swarm
could be tracked. In all gas-liquid flows, the bubbles can increase or decrease in size
due to coalescence or breakup. Coalescence occurs when two or more bubbles collide
and the liquid barrier between them ruptures to form a larger bubble. Bubble breakup
occurs when a bubble collides with a turbulent eddy approximately equal to its size
causing it to split into two or more smaller bubbles. Table 3.4.3-1 lists the input used to
create the population balance model implemented.
Figure 3.4.3-1 is a comparison between the gas volume fraction at 1 second and
5 seconds after gas has begun flowing through the bubble column. When comparing
Figure 3.4.3-1 to Figure 3.4.2-2, there are noticeable differences. One of the obvious
differences between the two figures is the distribution of the gas phase at the two time
points. With the population balance model implemented (Figure 3.4.3-1), the gas phase
distribution is more uniform and does not contain any areas with large gas volume
fractions. This is most noticeable at the bottom of the bubble column after 5 seconds.
61
Value
Discrete
3
0.0075595 m
0.0047622 m
0.0030000 m
25 %
50 %
25 %
Luo
0.072 N/m
Luo
0.072 N/m
Hagesather
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.4.3-2: Liquid Velocity Vectors with PBM (m/s)
After (a) 1 Second and (b) 5 Seconds
The population balance model calculates the bubble size distribution at each axial
height using the Luo breakup and coalescence model. Table 3.4.3-2 lists the bubble size
distribution at the inlet and outlet of the bubble column. This table proves that there is a
strong bias for the smaller bubbles to coalesce into larger bubbles; thus, surface tension
63
is a strong driver to reduce total surface area. This also proves that there is very little
turbulence within the column to cause the bubbles to break apart.
Table 3.4.3-2: Bubble Size Distribution Surface Tension of 0.072 N/m
Inlet
(Fraction)
0.250
0.500
0.250
Bin-0 (0.0076 m)
Bin-1 (0.0048 m)
Bin-2 (0.0030 m)
Outlet
(Fraction)
0.865
0.117
0.018
Net
(Fraction)
+0.615
-0.383
-0.232
Figure 3.4.3-3 is a comparison between the gas velocity vectors at 1 second and
5 seconds after gas has begun flowing through the bubble column.
Similar to
Figure 3.4.2-4, the shape of the gas as it initially climbs the bubble column is made up of
two adjacent parabolas; however, it is much more severe in Figure 3.4.3-3a.
Figure 3.4.3-3b reveals that the gas velocity increases as elevation increases due to
bubble coalescence.
(a)
(b)
The impact that surface tension has on bubble size distribution was evaluated by
reducing it by a factor of ten to 0.0072 N/m. Table 3.4.3-3 displays the bubble size
distribution at the inlet and outlet of the bubble column with the reduced surface tension.
The smaller surface tension decreases the driving force for bubbles to coalesce and
significantly reduces the average bubble diameter.
Table 3.4.3-3: Bubble Size Distribution Surface Tension of 0.0072 N/m
Bin-0 (0.0076 m)
Bin-1 (0.0048 m)
Bin-2 (0.0030 m)
Inlet
(Fraction)
0.250
0.500
0.250
Outlet
(Fraction)
0.495
0.335
0.170
Net
(Fraction)
+0.245
-0.165
-0.080
A mesh validation was not performed for this model directly. The mesh quality
is proven adequate in Section 3.4.2 which utilizes the same model without the population
balance model employed.
3.5
3.5.1
POOL BOILING
Pool boiling occurs when a liquid transforms to a vapor due to energy absorption
in a fluid that is stagnant. When the temperature of a heated surface sufficiently exceeds
the saturation temperature of the liquid in direct contact with it, vapor bubbles nucleate
on the surface. The bubbles grow until they detach from the surface and move out into
the bulk liquid. While rising is the result of buoyancy, the bubbles either collapse or
continue to grow depending upon whether the liquid is locally subcooled or superheated.
Pool boiling involves complex fluid motions initiated and maintained by the nucleation,
growth, departure and collapse of bubbles, and by natural convection. [11]
A transient, 2D Cartesian, pool boiling model was developed using the Eulerian
multiphase model. Figure 3.5.1-1 shows a schematic representation of the geometry and
boundary conditions used to model pool boiling. The top line of the rectangle is a
pressure outlet and the bottom line of the rectangle is the heated surface. The left and
65
right lines of the rectangle represent no slip boundaries. See Table 3.5.1-1 for a detailed
list of input parameters used.
Value
0.01 m
0.05 m
Planar
Transient
0.002 s
Pressure Based
Relative
-9.8 m/s2 (Y-direction)
Active
Laminar
Mixture
Schiller-Nauman
Manninen et al.
Evaporation-Condensation
0.0002 m
372 K
383 K
373 K
0
See Table 3.5.1-2
4182 J/kg-K
0.6 W/m-K
0.001003 kg/m-s
2.418379E+08 J/kgmol
0.5542 kg/m3
2014 J/kg-K
1.34E-05 kg/m-s
0.0261 W/m-K
0.072 N/m
PISO
Least Square Cell Based
Body Force Weighted
Second Order Upwind
QUICK
Second Order Upwind
Second Order Implicit
Temperature (K)
348
373.15
Figure 3.5.1-2 displays the instantaneous gas volume fraction after 0.9 seconds
and 1.7 seconds of heating. The first time point was chosen because it shows vapor
releasing from the heated surface and entering the bulk fluid which is the driving force
behind most of the fluid motion. The second time point was chosen because it reveals
the interaction between the liquid and vapor at a high level.
The evolution of vapor generation, upward movement (due to buoyancy) and
liquid refill is illustrated in Figures 3.5.1-2 through 3.5.1-4. Figure 3.5.1-2a reveals that
the bottom of the control volume is heated and some vapor has formed (two areas of
significant vapor generation are green). Figure 3.5.1-2b shows that the vapor has moved
67
upward (teal region) and that liquid has moved downward to take its place (blue area at
the bottom).
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.5.1-2: Vapor Volume Fraction
After (a) 0.9 Seconds and (b) 1.7 Seconds
Figure 3.5.1-3 and Figure 3.5.1-4 display the liquid and gas velocities,
respectively, at the two time points. Comparing these two figures indicates that the
largest upward liquid and vapor velocities occur in generally the same regions. These
regions also coincide with the areas of largest gas volume fraction (Figure 3.5.1-2). As
vapor bubbles form on the heated surface, they eventually detach and enter the liquid
above. Due to buoyancy, the vapor travels upward through the liquid. Drag forces
between the two phases cause the liquid to also travel upwards but at a slower rate due to
slip. Other areas of high liquid velocity occur between the two swells of upward moving
vapor and along the walls. The liquid being of greater density flows downward to refill
the void created by the recently generated vapor.
68
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.5.1-5 shows the volume fraction of vapor on the heated surface after
two seconds. This figure illustrates that vapor is produced significantly at two locations
(vapor volume fraction is at a maximum), 0.0008 m and 0.0095 m.
In this situation,
0.00 m is the left wall and 0.01 m is the right wall. The vapor volume fraction is at a
minimum at approximately 0.005 m which is the location where liquid is replacing the
recently created vapor.
Mesh 1
26645
26208
754.389
0.059396
452.2354
2.169675
0.787011
70
Mesh 2
32481
32000
742.115
0.062788
452.2388
2.190905
0.774197
Difference
21.90 %
22.10 %
-1.63 %
5.71 %
0.00 %
0.98 %
-1.63 %
3.5.2
the Eulerian multiphase model. Figure 3.5.2-1 shows a schematic representation of the
geometry and boundary conditions used to model subcooled flow boiling. The bottom
line of the rectangle is an axis of rotation which is used to simplify the geometry and
represents the pipe centerline. The top line of the rectangle is a no slip boundary with a
constant heat flux and after the rotation becomes the pipe wall. The left and right lines
of the rectangle are the inlet and outlet areas respectively, which when revolved, are
circular. In this scenario, the fluid flows in the axial (x) direction and against gravity.
See Table 3.5.2-1 for a detailed list of input parameters used.
Value
Geometry
Pipe Diameter
Pipe Length
2D Space
Solver
Time
Type
Velocity Formulation
Gravity
Models
Energy
Viscous
Near Wall Treatment
Turbulent Intensity
Multiphase
Drag
Lift
Heat Transfer
Mass Transfer
Bubble Departure Diameter
Nucleation Site Density
71
0.03 m
0.50 m
Axisymmetric
Steady
Pressure Based
Relative
-9.8 m/s2 (X-direction)
Active
Realizable k-
Enhanced
0.042079 *
Eulerian
Schiller-Nauman
Boiling-Moraga
Ranz-Marshall
RPI Boiling
Tolubinski-Kostanchuk
Lemmert-Chawla
368 K
961.99
4210.0
0.0002978
0.6773
-----
370 K
960.59
4212.1
0.0002914
0.6780
-----
373.15 K*
958.46
4215.5
0.0002822
0.6790
40622346
0.0589
Bubble Departure
Diameter Model
Tolubinski-Kostanchuk
Kocamustafaogullari-Ishii
Unal
Tolubinski-Kostanchuk
Kocamustafaogullari-Ishii
Unal
Nucleation Site
Density Model
Lemmert-Chawla
Lemmert-Chawla
Lemmert-Chawla
Kocamustafaogullari-Ishii
Kocamustafaogullari-Ishii
Kocamustafaogullari-Ishii
Bubble Departure
Frequency Model
Cole
Cole
Cole
Cole
Cole
Cole
Plots of temperature, liquid volume fraction and mass transfer rate for Case 1 are
shown in Figures 3.5.2-2, 3.5.2-3 and 3.5.2-4, respectively. Although these figures are
specific to Case 1, their trends can be applied to all of the subcooled flow boiling cases
analyzed. Figure 3.5.2-2 displays how the liquid temperature increases as the fluid
travels through the pipe. The maximum bulk liquid temperature is about 373 K which is
also the fluid saturation temperature.
73
Figure 3.5.2-4 is of particular interest because it shows both the generation and
destruction of vapor bubbles. The light blue and teal area next to the heated wall
illustrates that vapor is being generated. After the bubbles grow in size they detach and
join the bulk fluid. A small distance towards the pipe centerline, away from the heated
wall, is a dark blue region.
occurs here than anywhere else because there is a large amount of vapor available to
condense and the bulk fluid remains subcooled enough to absorb energy.
The
condensation rate decreases to zero about 0.010 m from the pipe centerline because all of
the generated vapor has condensed back to liquid at this point. The green line shows the
mass transfer rate at the outlet of the pipe. The greatest amount of vapor production
occurs on the pipe wall at this location. Vapor is also produced (mass transfer rate is
positive) up to 0.003 m from the pipe wall (0.012 m from the pipe centerline). This is
due to localized superheating which can induce a phase change. Note that, the mass
transfer rate is negative at the pipe centerline. This indicates that the bulk fluid remains
subcooled and that vapor production is larger than vapor destruction at this distance from
the pipe inlet.
volume fraction, meaning less vapor production, than the Lemmert-Chawla nucleation
site density model. Cases 4 through 6 have a smaller liquid volume fraction range
(0.9124 to 0.9165) than Cases 1 through 3 (0.9003 to 0.9108). This means that when the
Kocamustafaogullari-Ishii nucleation site density model is employed, the choice of the
bubble departure diameter model has less of an impact on liquid volume fraction than if
the Lemmert-Chawla nucleation site density model is employed.
Analyzing the results of the six cases from a bubble departure diameter model
perspective (comparing Cases 1 and 4 to Cases 2 and 5 to Cases 3 and 6), reveals that
there is no tendency for any of the three models examined to have a bias (i.e.,
consistently predict a larger or smaller liquid volume fraction). Thus, the nucleation site
density model has a greater impact on liquid volume fraction than the bubble departure
diameter model.
Table 3.5.2-4: Boiling Model Study Case Results
Case Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 3.5.2-6 shows the liquid volume fraction at nine axial locations as a
function of distance from the pipe center for the six cases described in Table 3.5.2-3.
The x-axis is position, or distance from the centerline, and the pipe wall is located at
0.015 m. Although Table 3.5.2-4 indicates that the models predict similar liquid volume
fractions within the entire control volume, Figure 3.5.2-6 illustrates that there are
noticeable differences between the cases.
volume fraction near the pipe inlet (0 to 10 cm) in Cases 4 through 6 compared to
Cases 1 through 3. Therefore, vapor formation using the Kocamustafaogullari-Ishii
nucleation site density model requires more energy addition. Second, the liquid volume
fraction 0.008 m from the pipe centerline is significantly less in Cases 1 through 3 than
in Cases 4 through 6. This is due to the smaller vapor production rate at the pipe wall in
Cases 1 through 3.
76
(a) Case 1
(b) Case 2
(c) Case 3
(d) Case 4
(e) Case 5
(f) Case 6
77
Fluid Temperature
(K)
370
370
370
372
368
370
370
Mass Flow
(kg/s)
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.33
0.27
Heat Flux
(kW/m2)
90
100
80
90
90
90
90
Thus, changes in inlet conditions near the saturation point will have a larger impact on
liquid volume fraction than changes in inlet conditions farther away from the saturation
point.
Table 3.5.2-6: Inlet Condition Study Case Results
Case Number
1
7
8
9
10
11
12
Table 3.5.2-7 shows the liquid volume fraction at nine axial locations for the
cases described in Table 3.5.2-5. This table allows for a finer comparison of the liquid
volume fraction between the cases. Table 3.5.2-7 does not show any irregular trends in
liquid volume fraction and the same relationships between inlet conditions and liquid
volume fraction developed using Table 3.5.2-6 can be drawn using Table 3.5.2-7.
Therefore, making observations based on overall liquid volume fraction is acceptable but
not conclusive.
Table 3.5.2-7: Axial Liquid Volume Fraction
Location*
0 cm
5 cm
10 cm
15 cm
20 cm
25 cm
30 cm
35 cm
40 cm
*
Case 1
Case 7
Case 8
1.00000 1.00000 1.00000
0.99168 0.98880 0.99397
0.97680 0.97050 0.98231
0.96151 0.95036 0.97201
0.93987 0.92220 0.95598
0.91595 0.89812 0.93589
0.89784 0.87830 0.91644
0.88190 0.85540 0.90250
0.85984 0.80840 0.89019
Distance from the pipe inlet.
79
Case 9
1.00000
0.95129
0.87624
0.80165
0.71266
0.57694
0.42719
0.31823
0.25132
Case 10
1.00000
0.99785
0.99390
0.98885
0.98427
0.97895
0.96784
0.95471
0.93927
Case 11
1.00000
0.99348
0.97938
0.96537
0.94748
0.92264
0.90098
0.88448
0.86812
Case 12
1.00000
0.98907
0.97482
0.95578
0.93222
0.91180
0.89572
0.87680
0.83296
(a) Case 7
(b) Case 8
(c) Case 9
(d) Case 10
(e) Case 11
(f) Case 12
80
Figure 3.5.2-7 illustrates the liquid volume fraction at the different axial locations
in Table 3.5.2-6. The x-axis is position, or distance from the centerline, and the pipe
wall is located at 0.015 m. The impact that fluid temperature (Case 9 and Case 10) has
on liquid volume fraction is extremely visible in Figure 3.5.2-7.
Case 9 shows
significant voiding in the centerline after 25 cm from the pipe inlet due to the high fluid
temperature (subcooling of about 1 K). Case 10 reveals the opposite where 40 cm from
the pipe inlet there is no voiding even at 0.010 m from the pipe centerline.
The liquid volume fraction at the nine axial locations from Cases 7 through 12
were compared to the liquid volume fraction of the base case (Case 1) using the
following three equations for heat flux, fluid temperature and mass flow, respectively,
where i stands for the axial location.
(
)
(
)
)
)
(
)
(
The results of comparing the values from Table 3.5.2-7 using the three above
equations are shown in Table 3.5.2-8. For example, at an axial height of 10 cm, by
increasing the heat flux from 90 kW/m2 to 100 kW/m2 (Case 1 to Case 7) the liquid
volume fraction decreased by 0.0063 or 0.00063 per kW/m2. Similar calculations were
carried out for the remaining axial locations and inlet conditions. The change in liquid
volume fraction at every axial location was averaged to produce an overall impact that
each inlet conditions has on liquid volume fraction.
81
Case 7
Case 8
0.00000
0.00000
-0.00029
-0.00023
-0.00063
-0.00055
-0.00112
-0.00105
-0.00177
-0.00161
-0.00178
-0.00199
-0.00195
-0.00186
-0.00265
-0.00206
-0.00514
-0.00304
-0.00154 (kW/m2)-1
Case 9
Case 10
0.00000
0.00000
-0.02020
-0.00309
-0.05028
-0.00855
-0.07993
-0.01367
-0.11361
-0.02220
-0.16951
-0.03150
-0.23533
-0.03500
-0.28184
-0.03641
-0.30426
-0.03972
-0.08028 (K)-1
Case 11
Case 12
0.00000
0.00000
0.06000
0.08700
0.08600
0.06600
0.12867
0.19100
0.25367
0.25500
0.22300
0.13833
0.10467
0.07067
0.08600
0.17000
0.27600
0.89600
0.17178 (kg/s)-1
Table 3.5.2-8 reveals the average impact that changing the heat flux, fluid
temperature and mass flow rate has on the liquid volume fraction. Evaluating which of
the three inputs has more impact on liquid volume fraction is difficult to do in absolute
terms (a 1 kg/s increase in mass flow rate is a larger percentage increase than a
10 kW/m2 increase in heat flux). Therefore, the values in Table 3.5.2-8 were compared
on a percentage basis to provide further insight. Table 3.5.2-9 shows the liquid volume
fraction change expected for a 1% change in each inlet condition. The second column of
Table 3.5.2-9 repeats the inlet conditions used in Case 1 (from Table 3.5.2-1), the third
column calculates 1% of the Case 1 input value (for example, 90 kW/m2 * 0.01 =
0.9 kW/m2), the fourth column repeats the results from Table 3.5.2-8, and the fifth
column shows the outcome when columns three and four are multiplied together.
Table 3.5.2-9: Relative Impact on Liquid Volume Fraction
Inlet
Condition
Heat Flux
Temperature
Mass Flow
Case 1
Input
90 kW/m2
370 K
0.3 kg/s
1% of Case 1
Table 3.5.2-8
Input
Results
2
0.9 kW/m
-0.00154 (kW/m2)-1
3.70 K
-0.08028 (K)-1
0.003 kg/s
0.17178 (kg/s)-1
Equivalent Liquid
Volume Fraction
-0.00139
-0.29704
0.00052
Table 3.5.2-9 states that a 1% increase in heat flux causes the average liquid void
fraction to decrease by 0.00139, a 1% increase in temperature causes the average liquid
void fraction to decrease by 0.29704 and a 1% increase in mass flow rate causes the
average liquid void fraction to increase by 0.00052. It is understood that a 1% increase
82
in the fluid temperature from the Case 1 condition would be greater than the saturation
temperature at atmospheric pressure and therefore impossible; however, this exercise
was performed to show how changes in inlet conditions impact liquid void fraction in a
more revealing manner. Table 3.5.2-9 indicates that fluid temperature has the greatest
impact on liquid volume fraction, the wall heat flux has the second greatest impact and
mass flow rate has the smallest impact.
To ensure that the mesh had no significant effect on the results, a mesh validation
was performed. The mesh validation compared the results displayed in this section
(Mesh 1 in Table 3.5.2-10) to a second mesh with an increased number of finite
volumes (Mesh 2 in Table 3.5.2-10). The results from the mesh validation shown in
Table 3.5.2-10 prove that the results are mesh independent.
Table 3.5.2-10: Mesh Validation for Subcooled Flow Boiling Model
Number of Nodes
Number of Elements
Max Liquid Velocity (m/s)
Max Gas Velocity (m/s)
Max Phase Transfer (kg/m3-s)
Min Liquid Volume Fraction
Mesh 1
25000
23976
0.8181624
0.9972627
24.87638
0.4876771
83
Mesh 2
31000
29970
0.8199201
0.9982293
26.22442
0.4853158
Difference
24.00 %
25.00 %
0.21 %
0.10 %
5.42 %
-0.48 %
Rayleigh instability were observed. Before the jet broke the surface of the water, it
became wavy and began to separate into smaller packets with the same volume but less
surface area due to perturbations in the jet that grow over time. The second model
created was a bubble column reactor. Wall-peaking bubbly flow was observed to occur.
Gas holdup due to phase drag forces and displacement was noted. The amount of gas
holdup was found to be related to inlet gas velocity however the relationship was not
linear. A population balance model was employed for two bubble column cases. The
model predicted that the gas bubbles would coalesce and grow in size as they traveled up
the bubble column due to surface tension. When the surface tension was reduced, the
number of bubbles that grew in size dramatically decreased.
Section 3.5 discussed phase transformation due to heat addition in both stagnant
and flowing liquids. The pool boiling model showed the progression of vapor formation
on the heated surface, detachment and liquid refill. Drag forces between the two phases
caused the liquid to travel upwards with the rising vapor but at a slower rate due to slip.
The second phase transformation model developed and the focus of this research
was a subcooled flow boiling model. The impact that different boiling model options
have on liquid volume fraction was investigated. Three bubble departure diameter
models and two nucleation site density models were analyzed using the same inlet
conditions. The bubble departure diameter models did not show any relationship with
liquid volume fraction; however, the Kocamustafaogullari-Ishii nucleation site density
model tended to predict a greater liquid volume fraction, meaning less vapor production,
than the Lemmert-Chawla nucleation site density model.
A second study on how inlet conditions impact the liquid volume fraction during
subcooled flow boiling was explored.
temperature and mass flow rate were increased or decreased relative to a base case value.
The difference in liquid volume fraction between scenarios was compared and
relationships relating the inlet conditions with respect to liquid volume fraction were
developed. Overall, the fluid temperature had the greatest impact on liquid volume
fraction, the wall heat flux had the second greatest impact and mass flow rate had the
smallest impact.
85
REFERENCES
1.
2.
Krepper, E.; Koncar, B.; Egorov, Y., CFD Modeling of Subcooled Boiling
Concept,
Validation
and
Application
to
Fuel
Assembly
Design,
Bird, R. B.; Steward, W. E.; Lightfoot, E. N., Transport Phenomenon, Wiley &
Sons Inc., 2nd Edition, 2007.
4.
5.
Kays, W.; Crawford, M.; Bernhard, W., Convective Heat and Mass Transfer,
McGraw-Hill, 4th Edition, 2005.
6.
7.
Tennekes, H.; Lumley, J., A First Course in Turbulence, The MIT Press, 1972.
8.
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Chaos, The McGrawHill Companies, Inc., 2005.
9.
10.
11.
Tong, L. S., Boiling Heat Transfer and Two-Phase Flow, Wiley & Sons Inc.,
2nd Edition, 1965.
86
12.
Faghri, A.; Zhang, Y.; Howell, J., Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer, Global
Digital Press, 2010.
13.
Eckert, E., Introduction to the Transfer of Heat and Mass, 1st Edition, 1950.
14.
15.
16.
87