International Conference

Nuclear Energy in Central Europe 2001

Hoteli Bernardin, Portorož, Slovenia, September 10-13, 2001
www: http://www.drustvo-js.si/port2001/ e-mail: [email protected]
tel.:+ 386 1 588 5247, + 386 1 588 5311 fax:+ 386 1 561 2335
Nuclear Society of Slovenia, PORT2001, Jamova 39, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

CFD SIMULATION OF SUBCOOLED FLOW BOILING AT

LOW PRESSURE

Boštjan Končar, Borut Mavko

“Jožef Stefan” Institute
Reactor Engineering Division
Jamova 39, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
[email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT

An increased interest to numerically simulate the subcooled flow boiling at low

pressures (1 to 10 bar) has been aroused in recent years, pursued by the need to perform safety
analyses of research nuclear reactors and to investigate the sump cooling concept for future
light water reactors. In this paper the subcooled flow boiling has been simulated with a multi-
dimensional two-fluid model used in a CFX-4.3 computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code.
The existing model was adequately modified for low pressure conditions. It was shown that
interfacial forces, which are usually used for adiabatic flows, need to be modeled to simulate
subcooled boiling at low pressure conditions. Simulation results are compared against
published experimental data [1] and agree well with experiments.

1 INTRODUCTION

The phenomenon of subcooled flow boiling is important in water-cooled nuclear power

reactors, since the presence of vapor influences the system reactivity. Up to now, models for
subcooled nucleate boiling have been developed and tested mainly for high pressure
applications, e.g. for power reactor analyses [2]. In recent years, there is an increased interest
in reactor safety analyses to investigate low-pressure subcooled boiling (1 to 10 bar), pursued
by the need to perform safety analyses of low pressure research reactors and to investigate
the sump cooling concept for Advanced Light Water Reactors (ALWR). According to the
analyses from the literature, the subcooled boiling models, which have been validated for high
pressure conditions, cannot be directly applicable to low pressure applications [3],[4]. At low
pressure, the difference between liquid and vapor densities is much higher than at high
pressure, which causes higher evaporation rates on the heated wall. Also the impact of
hydrodynamic mechanisms on void growth is stronger, which can lead to different modeling
approaches.
First multidimensional two-fluid model of subcooled flow boiling was formulated and
implemented by Kurul and Podowski [5], however it was validated only against high pressure
flows. Multidimensional calculations of subcooled boiling at low pressure have been
performed by Tu [6] and Jaensens-Maenhout [7]. They both used two-fluid model approach
and showed relatively good agreement with experimental data. Still, they presented only
averaged axial void fraction profiles along the flow, where hydrodynamic effects cannot be
estimated. Recently, Kljenak et al. [8] simulated low-pressure subcooled boiling experiments

208.1
 208.2

in a vertical annulus and presented radial void fraction profiles with void fraction peak near
the wall, which indicate the effect of hydrodynamic mechanisms acting perpendicular to flow
direction.
The objective of this study is to adequately model the phase change and hydrodynamic
mechanisms within the CFX-4 two-fluid model to predict the subcooled flow boiling at low
pressure conditions. Lateral hydrodynamic effects are considered in particular. The present
model is validated against lateral and axial void fraction data of subcooled boiling
experiments in an annular test section with a heated inner rod [1].

2 TWO-FLUID MODEL OF SUBCOOLED NUCLEATE FLOW BOILING

To model a two-phase flow with inter-phase transfer, the two-fluid model based on
averaged transport equations for mass, momentum and energy has been implemented into the
CFX-4.3 code [9]. Interaction terms that couple the transport of mass momentum and energy
of each phase across the interface are included as source terms in transport equations.
Turbulence of the liquid phase is modeled using the k–ε model with additional term
describing the bubble-induced turbulence. Shear and bubble induced turbulence are linearly
superimposed, according to Sato assumption [10].

2.1 Inter-phase momentum transfer

The inter-phase transfer of momentum is modeled with the interfacial forces, which
include drag, lift, turbulent dispersion and wall lubrication forces [9]. The inter-phase drag
force is flow-regime dependent and is modeled according to Ishii and Zuber correlation [11].
To describe the radial void fraction profiles, the so called “non-drag” forces, which act
perpendicular to the flow direction have to be modeled. The lift force on liquid phase can be
calculated as [9]:
v
FL = α g C L ρ l (u g − u l )× ∇ × (u l ) ,
v v v
(1)

where CL is lift force coefficient and is set to the value 0.1 for weakly turbulent bubbly flow.
This force is shear-induced and pushes the bubbles towards the wall (towards the low
velocity). The effect of diffusion of the vapor phase, caused by liquid phase turbulence is
described with turbulent dispersion force:
v
FTD = −CTD ρ l k l ∇α g , (2)

where kl is the turbulent kinetic energy of the liquid phase and CTD is the turbulent dispersion
coefficient, which is set to 0.1 according to Kurul and Podowski [5]. The wall lubrication
force, which is modeled according to Antal et al. [12] is used to push the bubbles away from
the wall:

α g ρ l (u g − ul )
v v 2
v  d v
FW = ⋅ max C1 + C 2 B ,0 n , (3)
dB  yw 

where dB is the bubble diameter and yw is the distance from the wall. The coefficients are
chosen as C1= -0.01 and C2= 0.05 to fit the experimental data. The wall lubrication force
considers the change of lift force near the wall due to changed velocity distribution around the
bubble. Wall lubrication force and lift force are especially important in adiabatic bubbly flow,

Proceedings of the International Conference Nuclear Energy in Central Europe, Portorož, Slovenia, Sept. 10-13, 2001
 208.3

where well-defined void fraction peaks occur near the wall. In the heated channels with
nucleating bubbles, the vapor is generated at the wall, so that phase change mechanisms
should prevail over the hydrodynamic mechanisms [5]. This is true for high pressures,
however the present analysis shows, that at low pressure and low subcooling conditions the
hydrodynamic mechanisms are very important, especially the wall lubrication force.
According to Eq. (3), the wall lubrication force strongly depends on the model for mean
bubble diameter.

2.2 Mean bubble diameter

Determination of bubble size in the subcooled liquid flow is required to accurately

estimate the inter-phase momentum transfer (drag force, wall lubrication force) and inter-
phase heat and mass transfer (condensation). The mean bubble diameter dB is modeled as a
linear function of local liquid subcooling [9]. The bubble diameters at the reference liquid
subcooling temperatures of 5 K and -2 K have been set to the values of 1 mm and 3.8 mm for
the atmospheric pressure conditions of the present study. Outside this subcooling range the
diameters are assumed to be constant. The present model for mean bubble diameter assumes
that local void fraction is lower than 0.3, so that the detached bubbles do not coalesce to form
larger bubbles.

2.3 Inter-phase heat and mass transfer

When liquid is subcooled, the vapor inside the bubble and bubble interface are assumed
to be at saturation temperature. The inter-phase condensation rate Γcond across the phase
boundary is defined as:

hif Aif (Tsat − Tl )

Γcond = , (4)
h fg

where Aif is the interfacial area per unit volume, hfg is latent heat and hif is the inter-phase heat
transfer coefficient, defined by the Nusselt number NuB:

Nu B k l
hif = (5)
dB

The NuB is calculated from Ranz-Marshall correlation [9]:

1 1
Nu B = 2 + 0.6 Re Pr 2
B l
3
(6)

The bubbles in the subcooled flow are assumed to have a spherical shape, thus the interfacial
area Aif is expressed as 6α/dB, with α and dB being the vapor volume fraction and mean
bubble diameter, respectively.
The wall vapor generation rate Γg in subcooled nucleate boiling is applied to the control
volume adjacent to the wall and modeled in a mechanistic way, taking into account the total
mass of bubbles departing from a heated wall:

π ⋅ d bw
3
Γg = ρ g fN , (7)
6
Proceedings of the International Conference Nuclear Energy in Central Europe, Portorož, Slovenia, Sept. 10-13, 2001
 208.4

where dbw is bubble departure diameter, f is the bubble detachment frequency and N is the
nucleation site density. Bubble departure diameter is required only to calculate the vapor
generation rate. According to experimental data of other researchers [13],[14], dbw varies
along the heated wall and depends on local subcooling. In the present study, the following
correlation for bubble departure diameter was used:

d bw = Cbw exp(∆Tsub 45) , (8)

where Cbw is the bubble departure coefficient, which is set to 0.007. The boundary conditions
for the energy equation at the wall require the model for wall heat flux partitioning, which
splits the total heat flux into the heat flux transferred to the liquid phase and to the heat flux
used to form vapor phase. The total wall heat flux consists of three different modes of heat
transfer:

q w = q1Φ + qQ + qe , (9)

where q1φ is the heat flux transferred to the liquid phase near the wall outside the zone of
nucleating bubbles (single phase convection heat flux), qQ is the heat transfered to the
relatively cold liquid from the core of the subcooled flow that fills the volume vacated by
departing bubbles (the so-called quenching heat flux) and qe is the portion of the wall heat
flux, that is directly used to generate vapor. In CFX-4 code the mechanistic model of Kurul
and Podowski [5] is used to describe different modes of wall heat transfer.

3 NUMERICAL MODEL

Simulation of the subcooled flow boiling in the vertical annulus with the heated inner
rod was performed. The annular test section, with inner and outer diameters of 19.1 mm and
38.1 mm, corresponds to experimental test section from the literature [1]. The length of the
heated part of the annulus is 1.5 m, while the inlet part of the test section (0.635 m) is not
heated. The numerical calculation was carried out on a cylindrical computational domain
divided into uniformly grid of 20 radial and 200 axial cells. A free slip boundary condition for
the vapor phase is used at the walls, taking into account the sliding of the bubbles in the
laminar sublayer. A logarithmic wall function is used as a wall boundary condition for liquid
phase. A constant heat flux boundary condition is applied at the inner wall of the annulus. At
the inlet uniform velocity and temperature profiles are set, according to Table 1. At the outlet
of the annulus a pressure boundary condition is applied.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The numerical predictions have been validated against the experimental data of Bartel
[1] for subcooled flow boiling at atmospheric pressure and moderate heat fluxes. The
experimental conditions are presented in Table 1.

Case No. poutlet (bar) qw (kW/m2) G (kg/m2s) uinlet (m/s) Tsub(in) (K)
1 1 105 470 0.49 8.9
2 1 147 922 0.96 3.6
3 1 128 701 0.73 6.1
4 1 128 701 0.73 4.8
5 1 145 700 0.73 5.2
Table 1: Experimental conditions

Proceedings of the International Conference Nuclear Energy in Central Europe, Portorož, Slovenia, Sept. 10-13, 2001
 208.5

The effect of the non-drag forces for experimental case 4 is presented in figure 1. Figure
1(a) shows the radial void fraction profiles compared against experimental data. Three
different calculations were performed, where none-drag forces were included or excluded
from momentum equation. In RUN 1, all none-drag forces were excluded, in RUN 2, only
turbulent dispersion force was modeled and in RUN 3, all non-drag forces, which include
turbulent dispersion, wall lubrication and lift force were modeled. As can be seen the
turbulent dispersion force acts to smooth the radial void fraction profile, while the wall
lubrication force pushes the vapor phase towards the subcooled region of the flow. The
prediction RUN3 shows the best agreement of void fraction profile with experiment and
successfully simulates the void fraction peak near the wall. Comparison of the predicted and
measured axial distributions of the void fraction averaged across the cross-section is shown in
figure 1(b). Again, the calculation which includes all non-drag forces (RUN3) gives the best
agreement with experimental data.

1 0.14
0.9 (b) Case 4 RUN3 (All)
(a) Case 4 RUN3 (All) 0.12
RUN1 (none)
0.8 RUN1 (none)
0.1 RUN2 (Turb.Disp.)
0.7
Void Fraction
RUN2 (Turb. Disp.)
Void Fraction

Exp
0.6 None Exp 0.08
0.5
0.06 None
0.4
Turb. Disp. Turb. Disp.
0.3 0.04 All
0.2
All 0.02
0.1
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(r-Ri)/(Ro-Ri) z/Dh

Figure 1: Effect of non-drag forces on void fraction evolution: (a) Radial void fraction profile
at axial location z/Dh= 98.7, (b) Averaged void fraction profile along the annulus

The partition of the applied heat flux along the heated wall for the experimental case 4
is shown in figure 2(a). As we can see the heat flux is mostly transferred to the liquid phase.
The single phase convection heat flux gradually decreases, while quenching and evaporation
heat fluxes increase. The evaporation heat flux is relatively low and stays below 0.1 of the
total wall heat flux along the entire heated length. Due to low inlet subcooling (4.8 K), boiling
is initiated already at the beginning of the heated section. Figure 2(b) shows temperature
distributions along the heated section. Saturation temperature, averaged liquid temperature,
local liquid temperature near the wall and temperature of the wall are presented. The liquid
temperature near the wall is slightly superheated at the outlet of the heated section. The wall
temperature exceeds the saturation temperature for about 5 K.

1 380
0.9
(a) Case 4 qe/qw
(b) Case 4 Wall
Fraction of the total heat flux

378
0.8 q1f/qw T_liq (average)
qq/qw T_liq (near wall)
Temperature (K)

0.7 376
T_wall
0.6 Single-phase convection Tsat
374
0.5
Quenching 372
0.4 Near wall
0.3 370 Average
0.2
Evaporation 368
0.1
0 366
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
z/Dh z/Dh

Figure 2: (a) Heat flux partition, (b) Temperature distributions along the annulus

Proceedings of the International Conference Nuclear Energy in Central Europe, Portorož, Slovenia, Sept. 10-13, 2001
 208.6

Figure 3(a) shows the radial distribution of mean bubble diameter at different axial
locations of heated section for experimental case 4. The maximum mean bubble diameter near
the wall increases from 2 to 3 mm due liquid subcooling decrease near the wall. Decrease of
mean bubble diameter in radial direction towards the outer unheated wall of the test section
follows the radial temperature distribution. In figure 3(b) the radial profiles of interfacial area
concentration for case 4 are presented. Qualitatively good agreement of predicted and
measured interfacial area can be observed, which demonstrates that mean bubble diameter
was adequately modeled. The calculated interfacial area concentration was significantly lower
than experimental data only in the vicinity of the heated wall. High interfacial area
concentration in the experiment indicates that a lot of relatively small bubbles can be found
close to the heater rod.

0.005 700

Interfacial area concentration (m -1)

0.0045 CFX z/Dh=40
(a) Case 4 (b) Case 4
Mean bubble diameter (m)

CFX z/Dh=40 600

0.004 CFX z/Dh=77.7
CFX z/Dh=77.7 CFX z/Dh=98.7
0.0035 500
Exp z/Dh=40
0.003 CFX z/Dh=98.7 Exp z/Dh=77.7
400
Exp z/Dh=98.7
0.0025
300
0.002
0.0015 200
0.001
100
0.0005
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(r-Ri)/(Ro-Ri) (r-Ri)/(Ro-Ri)

Figure 3: (a) Radial profiles of mean bubble diameter, (b) Radial profiles of interfacial area
concentration

Figure 4 shows radial and axial (averaged) void fraction profiles along the heated
section for different experimental cases. Reasonable agreement between experiments and
calculations can be observed for all simulated experiments. Uncertainty of measured data is
not included since it was not assessed by the author [1].
The implemented phase change and hydrodynamic models successfully describe the
influence of inlet subcooling and wall heat flux on the void fraction evolution for cases 3 to 5,
which have the same mass flow rate. However, bubble departure diameter and mean bubble
diameter need to be adjusted for cases 1 and 2, which have significantly different mass flow
rates. In case 1 with lower mass flow rate (G= 470 kg/m2s), more vapor generation is allowed,
thus the coefficient for bubble departure diameter Cbw, was increased to the value 0.0012.
Reference values of mean bubble diameter were also consistently increased to 1.5 mm and 4.3
mm at local liquid subcoolings of 8 K and –1 K, respectively. In the experimental case 2 with
higher mass flow rate (G= 922 kg/m2s), Cbw was reduced to 0.0004 and mean bubble diameter
was set to the reference values of 0.5 mm and 2.5 mm at liquid subcoolings of 3.75 K and
–2.5 K. Change of bubble departure diameter directly affects the amount of vapor generated
in the near wall cell, while mean bubble diameter affects the condensation rates and wall
lubrication force. Increased mean bubble diameters cause lower condensation rates in the
subcooled region and consequently widen two-phase zone near the heated wall.
Dependence of bubble diameter on mass flow rate at subcooled flow boiling has been
already reported by Unal [13] and lately by Kljenak et al. [8]. Unal stated that the bubble
departure diameter becomes dependent on flow velocity for velocities greater than 0.61 m/s.
Since all velocities in this study, except in experimental case 1, are higher than 0.61 m/s, the
change of bubble departure diameter due to mass flow rate is legitimate and has to be
considered.

Proceedings of the International Conference Nuclear Energy in Central Europe, Portorož, Slovenia, Sept. 10-13, 2001
 208.7

0.15 0.03

Case 1 L/Dh 40 L/Dh 54.1 Case 1 CFX

L/Dh 61.8 L/Dh 69.4 0.025
L/Dh 77.7 L/Dh 90.8 Exp
Vo L/Dh 98.7 CFX z/Dh=40

Void Fraction
0.1 0.02
id CFX z/Dh=54.1 CFX z/Dh=61.8
Fr CFX z/Dh=69.4 CFX z/Dh=77.7
ac CFX z/Dh=90.8 CFX z/Dh=98.7 0.015
tio
n 0.05 0.01

0.005

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(r-Ri)/(Ro-Ri) z/Dh

0.2 0.08
Case 2 Exp z/Dh=35 Exp z/Dh=40 0.07 Case 2 CFX
Exp z/Dh=72 Exp z/Dh=77.7 Exp
0.15 0.06
Exp z/Dh=93 Exp z/Dh=98.7

Void Fraction
Void Fraction

CFX z/Dh=35 CFX z/Dh=40 0.05

CFX z/Dh=72 CFX z/Dh=77.7
0.1 0.04
CFX z/Dh=93 CFX z/Dh=98.7
0.03

0.05 0.02

0.01

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

(r-Ri)/(Ro-Ri) z/Dh

0.2 0.045

Case 3 Exp z/Dh=35 Exp z/Dh=40 0.04 Case 3 CFX

Exp z/Dh=72 Exp z/Dh=77.7 0.035 Exp
0.15
Exp z/Dh=93 Exp z/Dh=98.7
Void Fraction

0.03
Void Fraction

CFX z/Dh=35 CFX z/Dh=40

0.025
CFX z/Dh=72 CFX z/Dh=77.7
0.1
CFX z/Dh=93 CFX z/Dh=98.7 0.02

0.015
0.05 0.01

0.005

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

(r-Ri)/(Ro-Ri) z/Dh

0.3 0.12

Case 4 Exp z/Dh=35 Exp z/Dh=40 Case 4 CFX

0.25 0.1
Exp z/Dh=72 Exp z/Dh=77.7 Exp
Exp z/Dh=93 Exp z/Dh=98.7
Void Fraction

0.2 0.08
Void fraction

CFX z/dh=35 CFX z/dh=40

CFX z/dh=72 CFX z/dh=77.7
0.15 0.06
CFX z/dh=93 CFX z/dh=98.7

0.1 0.04

0.05 0.02

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

(r-Ri)/(Ro-Ri) z/Dh

0.35 0.16

0.3 Case 5 Exp z/Dh=35 Exp z/Dh=40 0.14 Case 5 CFX

Exp z/Dh=72 Exp z/Dh=77.7 Exp

0.12
0.25 Exp z/Dh=93 Exp z/Dh=98.7
Void Fraction
Void Fraction

CFX z/Dh=35 CFX z/Dh=40 0.1

0.2
CFX z/Dh=72 CFX z/Dh=77.7 0.08
0.15 CFX z/Dh=93 CFX z/Dh=98.7
0.06
0.1 0.04

0.05 0.02

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

(r-Ri)/(Ro-Ri) z/Dh

Figure 4: Radial and axial void fraction distributions

Proceedings of the International Conference Nuclear Energy in Central Europe, Portorož, Slovenia, Sept. 10-13, 2001
 208.8

5 CONCLUSIONS

Reasonable agreement between experiments and calculations has been achieved,

showing that basic hydrodynamic and heat transfer mechanisms of subcooled boiling have
been successfully modeled within a two-fluid model.
This study shows that besides phase change mechanisms, also lateral hydrodynamic
mechanisms have to be considered for modeling of subcooled boiling at low pressure. The
experiments show the presence of void fraction peak near the heated wall, which can only be
reproduced by inclusion of wall lubrication force, which pushes the vapor phase away from
the wall. The applied model for heat flux partitioning shows that most of the wall heat flux is
transferred to the liquid, while only smaller part is used to generate vapor. The agreement
between experimental and predicted interfacial area concentration show adequate choice of
mean bubble diameter model, considering that the void fraction distributions were also
successfully predicted. The present analysis shows, that bubble departure diameter and the
mean bubble diameter depend on mass flow rate, at least for the conditions of simulated
experiments, which have high mass flow rates and relatively low inlet subcooling. This
indicates that further research of subcooled boiling mechanisms is needed, focused on
development of generic models for wall vapor generation and mean bubble diameter.

REFERENCES

[1] M.D. Bartel, Experimental Investigation of Subcooled Boiling, MSc Thesis, Purdue
University, 1999.
[2] A.S. Devkin, A.S. Posedonov, RELAP5/MOD3 subcooled boiling model assessment,
NUREG/IA-0025, 1998.
[3] S. Hari, Y.A. Hassan, “Assessment of the RELAP5/MOD3.2 subcooled boiling model for
low-pressure conditions”, Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 81, 1999, pp. 329-330.
[4] B. Končar, B. Mavko, I. Kljenak, “RELAP5 drift-flux modification for low-pressure
subcooled boiling flow”. Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 83, 2000, pp. 393-394.
[5] N. Kurul, M.Z. Podowski, “Multidimensional effects in forced convection subcooled
boiling”, Proc. 9th Int. Heat Transfer Conference, Jerusalem, Israel, 1990, pp. 21-26.
[6] J.Y. Tu, “The influence of bubble size on void fraction distribution in subcooled flow
boiling at low pressure”, Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer, 26, No.5, 1999, pp. 607-616.
[7] G. Janssens-Maenhout, J.U. Knebel, U. Muller, “Subcooled nucleate boiling at low
pressure and low heat flux”, 3th International conference on Multiphase flow, ICMF’98,
Lyon, France, 1998.
[8] I. Kljenak, G.C. Park, B. Mavko, T.Lee, “Bubble-tracking modeling of subcooled nucleate
boiling in a vertical annulus”, 4th International conference on Multiphase flow, ICMF-
2001, New Orleans, USA, 2001.
[9] AEA TECHNOLOGY PLC, CFX-4.3: Solver Manual, Harwell, United Kingdom, 1999.
[10] Y. Sato, M. Sadatomi, K.Sekoguchi, “Momentum and Heat Transfer in Two-Phase
Bubble Flow”, Int. J. Multi-phase Flow, 7, 1981, pp. 167-177.
[11] M. Ishii, N. Zuber, “Drag coefficienand relative velocity in bubbly, droplet or
particulate flows”, AIChE J., 25, 1979, pp. 843-855.
[12] S.P. Antal, R.T. Lahey Jr., J.E. Flaherty, “Analysis of phase distribution in fully
developed laminar bubbly two-phase flow”, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 17, 1991, pp. 635-
652.
[13] H.C. Unal, “Maximum bubble diameter, maximum bubble growth time and bubble
growth rate”, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 19, 1976, pp. 643-649.
[14] O. Zeitoun, M. Shoukri, “Axial void fraction profile in low pressure subcooled flow
boiling”, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 40, No.4, 1997, pp. 869-879.
Proceedings of the International Conference Nuclear Energy in Central Europe, Portorož, Slovenia, Sept. 10-13, 2001