Você está na página 1de 8

Michio Murase1

Mem. ASME
Institute of Nuclear Technology,
64 Sata, Mihama-cho, Miata-gun,
Correlation of Interfacial Friction
Fukui 919-1205, Japan
e-mail: murase@inss.co.jp Coefficients for Predicting
Takayoshi Kusunoki
Institute of Nuclear Technology,
Countercurrent Flow Limitation
64 Sata, Mihama-cho, Mikata-gun,
Fukui 919-1205, Japan at a Sharp-Edged Lower End of
e-mail: kusunoki.takayoshi@inss.co.jp

Koji Nishida
Vertical Pipes
Institute of Nuclear Technology,
64 Sata, Mihama-cho, Mikata-gun, One-region (1-R) sensitivity computations with the annular-flow model were carried out
Fukui 919-1205, Japan for countercurrent flow limitation (CCFL) at a sharp-edged lower end in vertical pipes to
e-mail: nishida.koji@inss.co.jp generalize the prediction method for CCFL there (i.e., predicting effects of diameters and
fluid properties on CCFL characteristics). In our previous study, we selected a correla-
Raito Goda tion of interfacial friction coefficients, fi, with a function of average void fraction which
Graduate School of Engineering,
gave a good prediction of the trend for air–water CCFL data, and we modified it to get
Kobe University,
good agreement with steam–water CCFL data under atmospheric pressure conditions,
1-1 Rokkodai, Nada-ku,
but it failed to predict CCFL reasonably at high pressure conditions. We recently found a
Kobe-shi 657-8501, Hyogo, Japan
Russian report on CCFL data at high pressure conditions, by which we improved the fi
e-mail: goda@cfrg.scitec.kobe-u.ac.jp
correlation using the dimensionless diameter and the viscosity ratio or density ratio of
gas and liquid phases to get good agreement with CCFL data at high pressures. The
improved fi correlation with the viscosity ratio and the improved fi correlation with the
Akio Tomiyama density ratio gave similar computed results, but the number of adjustment functions
Graduate School of Engineering,
was one for the density ratio and two for the viscosity ratio (i.e., minimum value of two
Kobe University,
functions). [DOI: 10.1115/1.4039438]
1-1 Rokkodai, Nada-ku,
Kobe-shi 657-8501, Hyogo, Japan
e-mail: tomiyama@mech.kobe-u.ac.jp

1 Introduction For CCFL in the hot leg, some experimental studies have been
done with rather large diameter models [2–5], but effects of the
Under postulated accident conditions in a pressurized water
diameter and fluid properties on CCFL characteristics were not
reactor (PWR), steam and condensate water form countercurrent
clarified. In our research group, therefore, Minami et al. [6] meas-
flows in a steam generator (SG) heat transfer tube (which is an
ured CCFL characteristics in a 1/15-scale model of a hot leg using
inverted U-tube), a hot leg (consisting of an inclined short pipe, a
air and water, and Murase et al. [7] did 3D numerical simulations
vertically-placed 50-deg elbow, and a horizontal pipe), and a pres-
for the full-scale model using a volume of fluid method imple-
surizer surge line (consisting of a vertical pipe, a vertical elbow,
mented in the computational fluid dynamics software FLUENT6.3.26
and a slightly inclined pipe with elbows), and countercurrent flow
and derived a Wallis-type CCFL correlation by using simulated
limitation (CCFL) may occur. In the safety analyses of nuclear
results and existing CCFL data, in which the characteristic length
power plants, the Wallis correlation [1] (which gives the relation-
of the Wallis parameter [1] is the diameter, D. On the other hand,
ship between superficial velocities of gas and liquid phases) is
there are only a few studies on CCFL in the pressurizer surge line
widely used to compute the falling liquid flow rate against the
[8–10]. Therefore, Futatsugi et al. [11] in our group observed
updraft gas flow rate. In the Wallis correlation, however, the
flooding locations and measured CCFL characteristics in a 1/10-
empirical constants (m and C) generally depend on the flooding
scale model of a pressurizer surge line using air and water. How-
location, the pipe diameter, the pipe length, and fluid properties.
ever, each PWR plant has its own layout of the pressurizer surge
Therefore, the common technical issue is how we can apply the
line, and so a generalized method to predict CCFL characteristics
CCFL correlation derived from small-scale test results to PWR
in the slightly inclined pipe with elbows was needed for the pres-
conditions. In our research group at Kobe University and the Insti-
surizer surge line. To generalize a method predicting CCFL char-
tute of Nuclear Safety System, Inc. (INSS), in which the represen-
acteristics in slightly inclined pipes with elbows, Murase et al.
tatives are Prof. A. Tomiyama at Kobe University and Dr. M.
[12] developed a 1D computation method, and they [13] validated
Murase at INSS, we have been working to improve CCFL correla-
1D computations in comparison with CCFL data in nearly hori-
tions for the SG heat transfer tube, hot leg, and pressurizer surge
zontal pipes and 3D simulations for the full-scale surge line
line for over 10 years. At Kobe University, we carried out small-
model. As a result, the 1D computation method was validated for
scale air–water experiments to understand CCFL behavior and to
the broad conditions of the inclination angle of h ¼ 0–1 deg, the
obtain a basic database, and at INSS we made three-dimensional
diameter of D ¼ 0.03–0.65 m, and the length to the diameter ratio
(3D) numerical simulations and one-dimensional (1D) or one-
of L/D ¼ 4.5–63 [12,13].
region (1-R) computations with a simple stratified or annular flow
For flooding in vertical pipes, many studies have been made
model to predict CCFL under PWR conditions.
and reviews are available [1,14]; but most have dealt with the
onset of flooding and studies on CCFL are limited. In our group,
1
Corresponding author.
therefore, Kusunoki et al. [15,16] did air–water and steam–water
Manuscript received May 25, 2017; final manuscript received February 15, 2018; CCFL experiments simulating the lower part of the SG heat trans-
published online May 16, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Walter Ambrosini. fer tube with the sharp-edged lower end (CCFL-L), and derived a

Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science JULY 2018, Vol. 4 / 031001-1
C 2018 by ASME
Copyright V

Downloaded From: http://nuclearengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Table 1 Empirical constants, m and Cj, in Eq. (1) from Ref. [20]

Classification Flooding location Characteristic length, L m Cj References

CCFL-L Sharp-edged lower end D 0.88 CW ¼ 0.7660.05 [17]


CCFL-U Sharp-edged upper end LL 0.90 CK ¼ 1.560.1 [19]
CCFL-P Inside pipe with rounded ends  D0.5LL0.5 0.90 CK ¼ min ((1.260.07)D*1/8, 1.79) [20]

Note: Databases for CCFL-U and CCFL-P are from air-water experiments.

CCFL-L correlation [17], in which the characteristic length in the Hk* in Eq. (1) becomes the Wallis parameter, Jk*, for b ¼ 0 in
Wallis parameter is the diameter, D. Doi et al. [18] also did Eq. (3) and the Kutateladze parameter, Kk*, for b ¼ 1. By using
air–water CCFL experiments simulating the upper part of the the dimensionless diameter, D*, Jk*, and Kk* can be exchanged for
pressurizer surge line with the sharp-edged upper end (CCFL-U), each other by
and Murase et al. [19] derived a CCFL-U correlation, in which the
characteristic length in the Wallis parameter is the Laplace capil- Jk ¼ Kk =D1=2 ; D ¼ D=LL ; ðk ¼ G or LÞ (5)
lary length, LL. From these results [17,19] and currently available
CCFL data inside vertical pipes (CCFL-P), Yamamoto et al. [20]
classified CCFL characteristics according to their dependence on 2.2 Effects of Diameter on Countercurrent Flow Limitation
the limiting location into CCFL-U at the sharp-edged upper end, Characteristics. Yamamoto et al. [20] classified CCFL character-
CCFL-L at the sharp-edged lower end and CCFL-P inside the ver- istics according to their dependence on the limiting location into
tical pipe with round-edged upper and lower ends, where values CCFL-U at the sharp-edged upper end, CCFL-L at the sharp-
of the characteristic length in the Wallis parameter are, respec- edged lower end and CCFL-P inside the vertical pipe with round-
tively, LL, D, and D0.5LL0.5. CCFL databases for vertical pipes, edged upper and lower ends, where values of the characteristic
however, are limited especially for large diameter pipes and high length, L, in Eq. (3) are, respectively, LL, D and D0.5LL0.5. Table 1
pressure steam–water conditions. Therefore, Kusunoki et al. [21] summarizes m and Cj in Eq. (1), and Fig. 1 shows the relationship
did 1-R computations for CCFL-L based on the annular flow between CK and D*. The maximum diameter in the database used
model by using several correlations for interfacial friction coeffi- for Table 1 and Fig. 1 is D ¼ 140 mm with air and water (D* ¼ 51)
cients, fi, to generalize a CCFL prediction method, selected an fi for CCFL-U.
correlation, and modified it with the dimensionless diameter, D*, For CCFL-L in this study, the upper limit of the dimensionless
and the ratio of viscosities of gas and liquid, lG/lL, to get good diameter, D*, may be about 31 (where CK reaches 1.79 for CCFL-
agreement with CCFL data under atmospheric pressure condi- P), and CCFL-P may become limiting in the region of D*  31.
tions, but our fi correlation could not be applied to high pressure Databases used for CCFL-U and CCFL-P are from air–water
steam–water conditions. experiments, and steam–water experiments are available only for
In this study, we did 1-R sensitivity computations with the CCFL-L with D ¼ 20 mm.
annular-flow model for CCFL-L data reported by Ilyukhin et al. [22]
under high pressure conditions (D ¼ 20 mm and pressures of 2.3 Effects of Fluid Properties on Countercurrent Flow
P ¼ 0.6–4.1 MPa) and improved our earlier fi correlation [21] by Limitation Characteristics. We recently found the literature by
using D* and lG/lL or the ratio of densities of gas and liquid, qG/qL. Ilyukhin et al. [22] that reported data for high pressure conditions
(D ¼ 20 mm and pressures of P ¼ 0.6–4.1 MPa), and Murase et al.
2 Outline of Countercurrent Flow Limitation [24] derived a new CCFL correlation for CCFL-L and CCFL-U.
Characteristics in Vertical Pipes
2.1 General Form of Countercurrent Flow Limitation
Correlation. The CCFL correlation proposed by Wallis [1] is
widely used in safety analysis computer programs and is
expressed by
1=2 1=2
HG þ mHL ¼ Cj ; ðj ¼ K or WÞ (1)
 qk 1=2
Hk ¼ Jk ; ðk ¼ G or LÞ (2)
gLðqL  qG Þ

where g (m/s2) is the gravitational acceleration, J (m/s) is the


superficial velocity, H* is the dimensionless velocity, L (m) is the
characteristic length, and q (kg/m3) is the density. The slope, m,
and constant, Cj, are generally obtained from CCFL experiments.
The subscripts K and W, respectively, denote the Kutateladze and
Wallis parameters, and the subscripts G and L, respectively,
denote the gas and liquid phases. Bankoff et al. [23] proposed the
characteristic length expressed by

L ¼ Dð1bÞ LbL ; 0b1 (3)

LL ¼ ½r=fgðqL  qG Þg1=2 (4)

where D (m) is the diameter, LL (m) is the Laplace capillary Fig. 1 Countercurrent flow limitation constants, CK, in vertical
length, and r (N/m) is the surface tension. pipes [20]

031001-2 / Vol. 4, JULY 2018 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://nuclearengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Figure 2 shows features of CCFL-L at the sharp-edged lower end, pressure in the secondary loop. In this study, therefore, we set the
which are effects of the viscosity ratio of gas and liquid, lG/lL, on target pressure to predict CCFL up to 7 MPa.
m and CW in Eq. (1) and CCFL characteristics adjusted by expo-
nent functions of lG/lL. Figure 2(a) shows that CCFL characteris- 3 One-Region Computation
tics are well adjusted by exponent functions of lG/lL. Figure 2(b)
shows CCFL-L data adjusted by the exponent functions of lG/lL Several 1-R computations for CCFL in vertical pipes have been
obtained from Fig. 2(a). The CCFL-L correlation derived from done [21,25–27]. The force balance equation based on the annular
Fig. 2(b) is flow model is a little different among Refs. [21] and [25–27] due
to different simplifications, and the same equation as in Ref. [21]
1=2
JG
1=2
þ 2:26ðlG =lL Þ0:29 JL ¼ ð1:260:05ÞðlG =lL Þ0:14 ; was used in this study.
In the annular flow model, force balance equations for the gas
5:6 < D < 19 (6) volume and total volume inside a vertical pipe are expressed by
[27]
Equation (6) gave good agreement with steam–water and
air–water data, but cannot be applied to air–glycerol water solu-  2
dPG fi JG JL 4
tion with large liquid viscosities. ¼ qG g þ qG þ pffiffiffi (7)
dz 2 a 1a D a
During small-break loss-of-coolant accidents in a PWR, CCFL
may occur below the pressure of about 7 MPa, which is the
2
dPT   fw JL 4
¼ qG ga þ qL gð1  aÞ  qL (8)
dz 2 1a D

where fi is the interfacial friction coefficient, fw is the wall friction


coefficient for single-phase flows, P (Pa) is the pressure, z (m) is
the vertical coordinate, and a is the void fraction averaged for the
time and space. Equations (7) and (8) show the force balance
between pressure, gravity, and the interfacial friction or wall fric-
tion force. The pressure and gravity act on the horizontal cross-
sectional area, but the interfacial friction and wall friction forces,
respectively,pffiffiact
ffi on the gas–liquid interface and wall surface
areas. 4=D a in Eq. (7) is the ratio of the perimeter of the
gas–liquid interface to the cross-sectional area, and 4/D in Eq. (8)
is the ratio of the perimeter of wall surface to the cross-sectional
area. The pressure gradients are the same for the gas volume and
total volume

dPG dPT
¼ (9)
dz dz

Bharathan et al. [25] simplified Eq. (7) by using JL ¼ 0 because JL


 JG in the region of large JG. Richter [26] used Eq. (7) but had
simple correlations for fi and fw. Sudo [27] added pressure losses
at the inlet and outlet to evaluate the effect of the pipe length on
CCFL, which was small except for short pipes.
Elimination of the pressure gradient from Eqs. (7)–(9) leads to
Eq. (10) in a dimensionless form by using the Wallis parameters
"
1=2 #2
2fi  a qG 2fw
J þ JL þ JL2  ð1  aÞ ¼ 0
a5=2 G 1  a qL ð1  aÞ2
(10)

Equation (10) gives the relationship between JG* and JL*. To


solve Eq. (10), correlations for fi and fw and an equation on the
void fraction are needed, because Eq. (10) has continuous solu-
tions depending on the void fraction. For the equation on the void
fraction, the most stable condition (or the maximum flow condi-
tion), @JG =@a ¼ 0 or @JL =@a ¼ 0, is generally used [21,25,27].
We used the maximum flow condition for the gas phase [21]

@JG =@a ¼ 0 (11)

Some correlations for interfacial friction coefficients have been


proposed. Kusunoki et al. [21] did 1-R computations for CCFL-L
based on the annular flow model by using several correlations
for interfacial friction coefficients, fi, to generalize a CCFL pre-
diction method, and they selected the fi correlation proposed by
Bharathan et al. [28], Eq. (12), which gave relatively good agree-
ment with air–water CCFL data
Fig. 2 Features of CCFL-L [24]: (a) effects of lG/lL on m and pffiffiffi
CW and (b) CCFL characteristics (S–W, steam-water) fi ¼ 0:005 þ 15:75½ð1  aÞ=a a1:96 (12)

Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science JULY 2018, Vol. 4 / 031001-3

Downloaded From: http://nuclearengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Table 2 Experimental conditions for CCFL-L

Authors D (mm) Liquid inlet Fluids P (MPa)

Kusunoki et al. [15] 20 Round-edge Air–water 0.1


Kusunoki et al. [16] 14, 20, 27 Round-edge Steam–water 0.1
20 Air-glycerol water
Kusunoki et al. [17] 18.4 Inverted U-tubea Steam–water 0.1
Ilyukhin et al. [22] 20 Sharp-edgeb Steam–water 0.6–4.1
Bharathan et al. [30] 51 Round-edge Air–water 0.1
Zapke and Kr€oger [31] 30 Porous ringc Air–water 0.1
Yonomoto et al. [32] 19.6 Inverted U-tubea,d Steam–water 1, 3, 7
a
Condensation experiment (water is condensate, and JL is relatively small).
b
Reported data include CCFL-L and CCFL-U, but only CCFL-L data were used in this study.
c
Water injection through a porous ring at the upper part of the vertical pipe.
d
Integral test facility with full-height SG heat transfer tubes.

Kusunoki et al. [21] modified Eq. (12) with the dimensionless


diameter, D*, and the ratio of viscosities of gas and liquid, lG/lL,
to get good agreement with air–water and steam–water CCFL
data under atmospheric pressure conditions
n pffiffiffi o
fi ¼ 0:005 þ 15:75½ð1  aÞ=a a1:96 2:4ðlG =lL Þ0:20 D0:22
(13)

Equation (13), however, could not be applied to high pressure


steam–water conditions [21]. Richter [26] and Sudo [27] used dif-
ferent fi correlations to compute CCFL-U, which cannot be used
for computations of CCFL-L due to different CCFL characteris-
tics between CCFL-U and CCFL-L as shown in Fig. 1.
The wall friction coefficient, fw, which is a quarter of the pres-
sure loss coefficient of circular pipes, is given by [29]
8
< 16=Re ðRe < 2300Þ
>
fw ¼ 0:079=Re0:25 ð2300 < Re < 105 Þ (14)
>
: 0:237 5
0:0008 þ 0:05525=Re ð10 < ReÞ

where Re is the Reynolds number.

4 Results
4.1 Adjustment Factors. The major experimental conditions
for CCFL-L at the sharp-edged lower end are listed in Table 2.
Adjustment factors Nfi for the fi correlation by Bharathan et al.
[28], Eq. (12), were obtained to get good agreement between the
computed results and CCFL data for each experimental case in
Table 2. Effects of fluid properties on CCFL in vertical pipes were
well expressed by functions of the viscosity ratio, lG/lL, as shown
in Fig. 2. Therefore, values of Nfi, for Eq. (12), are plotted for lG/
lL in Fig. 3(a). Equation (12) was developed from air–water data,
but Nfi for air–water conditions was 1.7–2.0, and this means that
Eq. (12) overestimates JL for air–water data. From values of Nfi in
Fig. 3(a), a suitable function of lG/lL for Nfi was obtained by the
least-square method, but they were expressed by two functions of
lG/lL as shown in Fig. 3(a). The values of Nfi with different diam-
eters were different for air–water [15,30,31] and steam–water [16]
at P ¼ 0.1 MPa. Therefore, the adjustment factor, Na, was devel-
oped based upon the fi value after applying the Nfi adjustment fac-
tor to get good agreement between the computed results and
CCFL data as shown in Fig. 3(b). From values of Na in Fig. 3(b),
a suitable function of D* for Na was obtained by the least-square
method. Consequently, the improved correlation for Eq. (12) was
derived
n pffiffiffi o Fig. 3 Adjustment factors, Nfi and Na, for the fi correlation,
fi ¼ 0:005 þ 15:75½ð1  aÞ=a a1:96 min½0:30 ln ðlG =lL Þ Eq. (12), with functions of the viscosity ratio, lG/lL, and the
dimensionless diameter, D * (A, air; S, steam; W, water): (a)
þ 3:0; 0:78 ln ðlG =lL Þ  0:45 0:64D0:19 (15) effects of lG/lL on Nfi and (b) effects of D * on Na

031001-4 / Vol. 4, JULY 2018 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://nuclearengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Figure 4 compares values computed with Eq. (15), JG,1R*1/2, In Fig. 2(a), m and CW for air–water and steam–water at
and experimental values, JG,Exp*1/2. The 1-R computations 0.1 MPa showed a similar trend to those for steam–water at
were done for each experimental value of JL,Exp*1/2. The 0.6–4.1 MPa. This is important, because CCFL characteristics for
computed values, JG,1R*1/2, agreed with experimental values, high pressures may be often predicted from CCFL data at low
JG,Exp*1/2, within the error of dJG*1/2 ¼ 60.05 except for the data pressures. In Fig. 3(a), however, the adjustment factors, Nfi, for
by Bharathan et al. [30] and Yonomoto et al. [32]. Measurement air–water and steam–water at 0.1 MPa showed a different trend
uncertainty for JG*1/2 was within dJG*1/2 < 60.01 in the experi- with those for steam–water at 0.6–4.1 MPa. This may be due to
ment by Kusunoki et al. [15,16]. the void fraction in Eq. (12). It is well known that void fractions
The slope, m, of the data by Bharathan et al. [30] with strongly depend on the pressure and the density ratio of gas to liq-
D ¼ 51 mm and air–water conditions was smaller than that for uid, qG/qL.
other data conditions (in Fig. 4, the change for JG,Exp*1/2 is smaller The adjustment function of fi for qG/qL was derived by the
due to the small mExp). The data of Yonomoto et al. [32] were same procedure as that for lG/lL. The adjustment factors, Nfi, for
obtained by using the ROSA-IV/LSTF facility with full-height SG the fi correlation, Eq. (12), are shown for qG/qL in Fig. 5(a). The
heat transfer tubes (D ¼ 19.6 mm). The pressure range of 1–7 MPa Nfi values in Fig. 5(a) are the same as those in Fig. 3(a). The
used by Yonomoto et al. [32] overlapped with that of 0.4–4.1 MPa adjustment factors, Nfi, were expressed by a function of qG/qL for
used by Ilyukhin et al. [22] (D ¼ 20 mm), but the CCFL data in air–water and steam–water conditions, though they were not
the two reports were different. Like the 1-R computations, data by expressed by a function of qG/qL for the air–glycerol water solu-
Bharathan et al. [30] and Yonomoto et al. [32] were outside the tion. The adjustment factors, Nfi, with different diameters were
uncertainty of dCW ¼ 60.05 in Eq. (6). different for air–water [15,30,31] and steam–water at P ¼ 0.1 MPa

Fig. 5 Adjustment factors, Nfi and Na, for the fi correlation, Eq.
(12), with functions of the density ratio, qG/qL, and the dimen-
Fig. 4 Comparison between computed values with Eq. (15) sionless diameter, D* (A, air; S, steam; W, water): (a) effects of
and experimental values qG/qL on Nfi and (b) effects of D* on Na

Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science JULY 2018, Vol. 4 / 031001-5

Downloaded From: http://nuclearengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


[16]. The adjustment factor, Na, was developed based upon the fi noted that Eqs. (15) and (16) strongly depend on the data by
value after applying the Nfi adjustment factor to get good agree- Ilyukhin et al. [22] for high pressure conditions.
ment between the computed results and CCFL data as shown in There were no clear differences between 1-R computations
Fig. 5(b). Like Eq. (15), the improved correlation for Eq. (12) was with Eqs. (15) and (16). Equation (16) was better than Eq. (15),
derived because Eq. (16) with one equation for Nfi included air–water and
n o steam–water conditions, which is very important, because
pffiffiffi air–water data are available in most cases. Computation results
fi ¼ 0:005 þ 15:75½ð1  aÞ=a a1:96
with both Eqs. (15) and (16) did not include the ROSA-IV/LSTF
½0:29 ln ðqG =qL Þ  0:13 0:56D0:26 (16) data [32] within the error of dJG*1/2 ¼ 60.05. To evaluate CCFL-
L in the SG heat transfer tube, therefore, we recommend using the
Figure 6 compares values computed with Eq. (16), JG,1R*1/2, correlation by Kusunoki et al. [17], which included the ROSA-IV/
and experimental values, JG,Exp*1/2. The 1-R computations LSTF data [32] within the uncertainty of 60.05
were done for each experimental value of JL,Exp*1/2. The
computed values, JG,1R*1/2, agreed with experimental values, ðJG Þ1=2 þ 0:88ðJL Þ1=2 ¼ 0:76 6 0:05; D < 19 (17)
JG,Exp*1/2, within the error of dJG*1/2 ¼ 60.05 except for the data
by Bharathan et al. [30] and Yonomoto et al. [32]. It should be Countercurrent flow limitation characteristics differ among data-
bases, and so a correlation suitable to the subject should be
selected.

4.2 Prediction of Countercurrent Flow Limitation at High


Pressure Conditions. Figure 7 shows prediction of CCFL charac-
teristics at P ¼ 7 MPa for D ¼ 20 and 51 mm. For D ¼ 20 mm, the
results computed with Eq. (16) agreed well with CCFL data at
P ¼ 0.1 MPa [16], 4.1 MPa [22], and 7 MPa [32] as shown in
Fig. 7(a). The difference between 1-R computations and Eq. (6)
for P ¼ 7 MPa was relatively small.
For D ¼ 51 mm, only air–water data [30] are available. The
slope of the line showing computed results was larger than that of
experimental data [30] line, and the slope of experimental data
[30] line was smaller than the slopes of other data [15,31] lines as
discussed in Fig. 4 (the slope is larger in Fig. 4 due to smaller
change for JG,Exp*1/2). On increasing the pressure, the constant,
CW (the value of JG*1/2 at JL*1/2 ¼ 0), and slope, m, became large.
The slope, m, of the results computed with Eq. (16) was larger at
P ¼ 7 MPa than that of Eq. (6). The difference between 1-R com-
putations and Eq. (6) for P ¼ 7 MPa was larger for D ¼ 51 mm
than for D ¼ 20 mm. This shows that care must be taken when 1-R
computations and Eq. (6) are applied to a large diameter pipe. The
comparison of CCFL values computed with Eqs. (6) and (16) may
suggest uncertainty of the predicted CCFL.

5 Discussion
Countercurrent flow limitation-L at the sharp-edged lower end
in vertical pipes is basically expressed by the Wallis parameters,
but some modifications need to be applied to a wide range of the
diameters and fluid properties. CCFL-L data are limited for large
diameter and high pressure steam–water conditions. In an earlier
study [24], we derived the CCFL-L correlation, Eq. (6), from
CCFL-L data [15,16,22] with D ¼ 20 mm. In this study, we did 1-
R computations and obtained adjustment factors for the correla-
tion of interfacial friction coefficients expressed by Eq. (16) to get
good agreement between the computed results with CCFL-L data
[15–17,22,30,31] with D ¼ 14–51 mm. Similar databases were
used to derive Eqs. (6) and (16), but the difference between Eq.
(6) and results computed with Eq. (16) became relatively large for
D ¼ 51 mm and P ¼ 7 MPa as shown in Fig. 7(b). The different
approaches of Eq. (6) and of the 1-R computations with Eq. (16)
to predict CCFL are important to evaluate uncertainty of the pre-
diction, because we have to use CCFL correlations beyond their
experimental conditions in safety analyses.
One of the important technical issues for the CCFL prediction
is the correlation for interfacial friction coefficients. Interfacial
friction coefficients are generally expressed by a function of the
void fraction [25,27,28] or the liquid film thickness [26], which
can be changed to a function of the void fraction. The void frac-
tion is strongly affected by the pressure and the density ratio of
Fig. 6 Comparison between values computed with Eq. (16) gas and liquid (cf., Fig. 5(a)). On the other hand, CCFL character-
and experimental values istics are strongly affected by the liquid viscosity (cf., Fig. 2).

031001-6 / Vol. 4, JULY 2018 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://nuclearengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


D*, and the ratio of viscosities of gas and liquid, lG/lL, or the
ratio of densities of gas and liquid, qG/qL.
(1) The improved fi correlations with lG/lL and qG/qL gave
similar computed results. The computation errors for the
CCFL-L were almost within dJG*1/2 ¼ 60.05 (the maxi-
mum value of JG*1/2 was 0.93), except for some data points
by Bharathan et al. [30] with a small slope in the CCFL
characteristics and Yonomoto et al. [32] with the ROSA-
IV/LSTF.
(2) The improved fi correlation with qG/qL was better than that
with lG/lL, because adjustment factors were expressed by
one function for qG/qL but two functions for lG/lL. This
may be due to effects of qG/qL on the void fraction, which
is a major factor in the fi correlation used.
The results of this study suggested that it may be important to
find another major factor suitable for the correlation of interfacial
friction coefficients, rather than use the void fraction.

Nomenclature
C¼ CCFL constant
D¼ diameter, m
D* ¼ dimensionless diameter
fi ¼ interfacial friction coefficient
fw ¼ wall friction coefficient
g¼ gravitational acceleration, m/s2
H* ¼ dimensionless velocity defined by Eq. (2)
J¼ superficial velocity, m/s
J* ¼ Wallis parameter
K* ¼ Kutateladze parameter
L¼ characteristic length expressed by Eq. (3), m
LL ¼ Laplace capillary length defined by Eq. (4), m
m¼ slope in the Wallis CCFL correlation
N¼ adjustment factor for fi
P¼ pressure, Pa
Re ¼ Reynolds number
z¼ vertical coordinate, m
a¼ void fraction
l¼ viscosity, Pa
s
q¼ density, kg/m3
r¼ surface tension, N/m

Subscripts
Exp ¼ experiment
G¼ gas phase
j¼ K or W
k¼ G or L
K¼ Kutateladze parameter
L¼ liquid phase
W¼ Wallis parameter
Fig. 7 Prediction of CCFL characteristics at P 5 7 MPa (A, air; 1R ¼ one-region computation
S, steam; W, water): (a) D 5 20 mm and (b) D 5 51 mm

References
Therefore, it may be important to find another major factor suita- [1] Wallis, G. B., 1969, One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow, McGraw-Hill, New
ble for the correlation of interfacial friction coefficients, rather York, pp. 336–345.
than use the void fraction. [2] Richter, H. J., Wallis, G. B., Carter, K. H., and Murphy, S. L., 1978,
“Deentrainment and Countercurrent Air-Water Flow in a Model PWR Hot-
Leg,” U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No.
NRC-0193-9.
6 Conclusion [3] Mayinger, F., Weiss, P., and Wolfert, K., 1993, “Two-Phase Flow Phenomena
in Full-Scale Reactor Geometry,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 145(1–2), pp. 47–61.
In this study, we did 1-R computations based on the annular [4] Geffraye, G., Bazin, P., Pichon, P., and Bengaouer, A., 1995, “CCFL in Hot
flow model for CCFL-L at the sharp-edged lower end in vertical Legs and Steam Generators and Its Prediction With the CATHARE Code,” Sev-
enth International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics
pipes and compared the results with CCFL-L data measured under (NURETH-7), Saratoga Springs, NY, Sept. 10–15, pp. 815–826.
the conditions of D ¼ 14–51 mm and P ¼ 0.1–4.1 MPa to general- [5] Al Issa, S., and Macian, R., 2014, “Experimental Investigation of Countercur-
ize a prediction method of CCFL-L. We used the correlation for rent Flow Limitation (CCFL) in a Large-Diameter Hot-Leg Geometry: A
interfacial friction coefficients, fi, proposed by Bharathan et al. Derailed Description of CCFL Mechanisms, Flow Patterns and High-Quality
HSC Imaging of the Interfacial Structure in a 1/3.9 Scale of PWR Geometry,”
[28], which is a function of the void fraction, a. To obtain good Nucl. Eng. Des., 280, pp. 550–563.
agreement between the computed results and the data, we [6] Minami, N., Nishiwaki, D., Nariai, T., Tomiyama, A., and Murase, M., 2010,
improved the fi correlation by using the dimensionless diameter, “Countercurrent Gas-Liquid Flow in a PWR Hot Leg Under Reflux Cooling (I)

Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science JULY 2018, Vol. 4 / 031001-7

Downloaded From: http://nuclearengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Air-Water Tests for 1/15- Scale Model of a PWR Hot Leg,” J. Nucl. Sci. Tech- Upper End,” 11th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal
nol., 47(2), pp. 142–148. Hydraulics, Operation and Safety (NUTHOS-11), Gyeongju, Korea, Oct. 9–13,
[7] Murase, M., Tomiyama, A., Lucas, D., Kinoshita, I., Utanohara, Y., and Paper No. N11P0014.
Yanagi, C., 2012, “Correlation for Countercurrent Flow Limitation in a PWR [20] Yamamoto, Y., Murase, M., Hayashi, K., Hosokawa, S., and Tomiyama, A.,
Hot Leg,” J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 49(4), pp. 398–407. 2016, “Counter-Current Flow Limitation Inside Vertical Pipes,” Jpn. J. Multi-
[8] Takeuchi, K., Young, M. Y., and Gagnon, A. F., 1999, “Flooding in the Pressur- phase Flow, 30(4), pp. 392–401 (in Japanese).
izer Surge Line of AP600 Plant and Analyses of APEX Data,” Nucl. Eng. Des., [21] Kusunoki, T., Yamamoto, Y., Murase, M., Hayashi, K., Hosokawa, S., and
192(1), pp. 45–58. Tomiyama, A., 2017, “Interfacial Friction Factor for Counter-Current Gas-
[9] Cullum, W., Reid, J., and Vierow, K., 2014, “Water Inlet Subcooling Effects on Liquid Flows in Vertical Pipes,” Jpn. J. Multiphase Flow, 31(1), pp. 37–46 (in
Flooding With Steam and Water in a Large Diameter Vertical Tube,” Nucl. Japanese).
Eng. Des., 273, pp. 110–118. [22] Ilyukhin, Y. N., Balunov, B. F., Smirnov, E. L., and Gotovskii, M. A., 1988,
[10] Wang, Z. W., Tian, W. X., Yu, J. T., Zhang, D. L., Su, G. H., Qiu, S. Z., Chen, “Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Annular Counter Flows in Vertical
R. H., and Dong, B., 2015, “Experimental Investigation of CCFL in Pressurizer Channels,” Teplofiz. Vys. Temp., 26(5), pp. 923–931 (in Russian).
Surge Line With Air-Water,” 16th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear [23] Bankoff, S. G., Tankin, R. S., Yuen, M. C., and Hsieh, C. L., 1981,
Reactor Thermal Hydraulics (NURETH-16), Chicago, IL, Aug. 30–Sept. 4, pp. “Countercurrent Flow of Air/Water and Steam/Water Through a Horizontal
8669–8682. Perforated Plate,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 24(8), pp. 1381–1395.
[11] Futatsugi, T., Yanagi, C., Murase, M., Hosokawa, S., and Tomiyama, A., 2012, [24] Murase, M., Kusunoki, T., Yamamoto, Y., Goda, R., Hayashi, K., Hosokawa,
“Countercurrent Air-Water Flow in a Scale-Down Model of a Pressurizer Surge S., and Tomiyama, A., 2017, “Effects of Fluid Properties on Countercurrent
Line,” Sci. Technol. Nucl. Install., 2012, p. 174838. Flow Limitation in Vertical Pipes,” Jpn. J. Multiphase Flow, 31(2), pp.
[12] Murase, M., Kinoshita, I., Kusunoki, T., Lucas, D., and Tomiyama, A., 2015, 152–161 (in Japanese).
“Countercurrent Flow Limitation in a Slightly Inclined Pipe With Elbows,” [25] Bharathan, D., Wallis, G. B., and Richter, H. J., 1979, “Air-Water Countercur-
ASME J. Nucl. Eng. Radiat. Sci., 1(4), p. 041009. rent Annular Flow,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Report
[13] Murase, M., Utanohara, Y., Kusunoki, T., Yamamoto, Y., Lucas, D., and Tomiyama, No. EPRI NP-1165.
A., 2017, “Prediction of Countercurrent Flow Limitation and Its Uncertainty in Hori- [26] Richter, H. J., 1981, “Flooding in Tubes and Annuli,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow,
zontal and Slightly Inclined Pipes,” Nucl. Technol., 197(2), pp. 140–157. 7(6), pp. 647–658.
[14] Bankoff, S. G., and Lee, S. C., 1983, “A Critical Review of the Flooding Liter- [27] Sudo, Y., 1994, “Limitation of Falling Water in Countercurrent Two-Phase
ature,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. Flow in Vertical Circular Tubes,” Trans. JSME, 60(575), pp. 330–336 (in
NUREG/CR-3060. Japanese).
[15] Kusunoki, T., Doi, T., Fujii, Y., Tsuji, T., Murase, M., and Tomiyama, A., [28] Bharathan, D., Wallis, G. B., and Richter, H. J., 1978, “Effects of Bottom Ori-
2014, “Air-Water Tests on Counter-Current Flow Limitation at Lower End of ficing on Single- and Multi-Tube Countercurrent Flow Characteristics,” U.S.
Vertical Pipes Simulating Lower Part of Steam Generator U-Tube,” Jpn. J. Mul- Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. NRC-0293-6.
tiphase Flow, 28(1), pp. 62–70 (in Japanese). [29] Ohnuki, A., Adachi, H., and Murao, Y., 1988, “Scale Effects on Countercurrent
[16] Kusunoki, T., Murase, M., Fujii, Y., Nozue, T., Hayashi, K., Hosokawa, S., and Gas-Liquid Flow in a Horizontal Tube Connected to an Inclined Riser,” Nucl.
Tomiyama, A., 2015, “Effects of Fluid Properties on CCFL Characteristics at a Eng. Des., 107(3), pp. 283–294.
Vertical Pipe Lower End,” J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 52(6), pp. 887–896. [30] Bharathan, D., Wallis, G. B., and Richter, H. J., 1978, “Air Water Countercur-
[17] Kusunoki, T., Nozue, T., Hayashi, K., Hosokawa, S., Tomiyama, A., and Mur- rent Annular Flow in Vertical Tubes,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
ase, M., 2016, “Condensation Experiments for Counter-Current Flow Limita- Alto, CA, Report No. EPRI NP-786.
tion in an Inverted U-Tube,” J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 53(4), pp. 486–495. [31] Zapke, A., and Kr€oger, D. G., 1996, “The Influence of Fluid Properties and Inlet
[18] Doi, T., Futatsugi, T., Murase, M., Hayashi, K., Hosokawa, S., and Tomiyama, A., Geometry on Flooding in Vertical and Inclined Tubes,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow,
2012, “Countercurrent Flow Limitation at the Junction Between the Surge Line 22(3), pp. 461–472.
and the Pressurizer of a PWR,” Sci. Technol. Nucl. Install., 2012, p. 754724. [32] Yonomoto, T., Anoda, Y., Kukita, Y., and Peng, Y., 1991, “CCFL Characteris-
[19] Murase, M., Kusunoki, T., Yamamoto, Y., Mori, K., and Tomiyama, A., 2016, tics of PWR Steam Generator U-Tubes,” International Topical Meeting on
“Countercurrent Flow Limitation in Vertical Pipes With the Sharp-Edged Safety of Thermal Reactor, Portland, OR, July 21–25, pp. 522–529.

031001-8 / Vol. 4, JULY 2018 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://nuclearengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Você também pode gostar