See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236450205

Towards CFD Modelling of Critical Heat Flux in Fuel Rod Bundles

Conference Paper · July 2006

CITATIONS READS

2 136

3 authors, including:

Eckhard Krepper Boštjan Končar

Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf Jožef Stefan Institute
172 PUBLICATIONS   4,179 CITATIONS    85 PUBLICATIONS   1,010 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modelling framework in OpenFoam View project

NUBEKS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Boštjan Končar on 19 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 g
Reno, NV USA, June 4-8, 2006
Paper 6261

7RZDUGV&)'0RGHOOLQJRI&ULWLFDO+HDW)OX[LQ)XHO5RG%XQGOHV

Eckhard Krepper
)RUVFKXQJV]HQWUXP5RVVHQGRUIH9,QVWLWXWHRI6DIHW\5HVHDUFK
''UHVGHQ32%*HUPDQ\
(.UHSSHU#I]URVVHQGRUIGH
Yury Egorov,
$16<6*HUPDQ\*PE+6WDXGHQIHOGZHJ'2WWHUILQJ*HUPDQ\
Yury.Egorov@ansys.com

%RVWMDQ.RQþDU
³-RåHI6WHIDQ´,QVWLWXWH-DPRYD/MXEOMDQD6ORYHQLD
%RVWMDQ.RQFDU#LMVVL

$EVWUDFW± 7KHSDSHUGHVFULEHVDFWXDO&)'DSSURDFKHVWRVXEFRROHGERLOLQJDQGLQYHVWLJDWHV
WKHLUFDSDELOLW\WR FRQWULEXWH WR IXHO DVVHPEO\ GHVLJQ ,Q DSURWRW\SHYHUVLRQRIWKH&)'FRGH
&);DZDOOERLOLQJPRGHOLVLPSOHPHQWHGEDVHGRQDZDOOKHDWIOX[SDUWLWLRQDOJRULWKP,WFDQEH
VKRZQ WKDW WKH ZDOO ERLOLQJ PRGHO LV DEOH WR FDOFXODWH WKH FURVV VHFWLRQDO DYHUDJHG YDSRXU
YROXPHIUDFWLRQZLWKJRRGDJUHHPHQWWRSXEOLVKHGPHDVXUHPHQWV7KHPRVWVHQVLWLYHSDUDPHWHUV
RI WKH PRGHO DUH LGHQWLILHG 1HHGV IRU PRUH GHWDLOHG H[SHULPHQWV DUH HVWDEOLVKHG ZKLFK DUH
QHFHVVDU\WRVXSSRUWIXUWKHUPRGHOGHYHORSPHQW1HYHUWKHOHVVLQWKHSDSHUWKHPRGHOLVDSSOLHG
IRUWKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQRIWKHSKHQRPHQDLQVLGHDKRWFKDQQHOLQDIXHODVVHPEO\+HUHWKHHVVHQWLDO
SDUDPHWHU LV WKH FULWLFDO KHDW IOX[ $OWKRXJK VXEFRROHG ERLOLQJ UHSUHVHQWV RQO\ D SUHOLPLQDU\
VWDWHWRZDUGFULWLFDOKHDWIOX[HVVHQWLDOSDUDPHWHUVOLNHWKHVZLUOWKHFURVVIORZEHWZHHQDGMDFHQW
FKDQQHOVDQGFRQFHQWUDWLRQUHJLRQVRIEXEEOHVFDQEHGHWHUPLQHG&DOFXODWLQJWKHWHPSHUDWXUH
DWWKHURGVXUIDFHFULWLFDOUHJLRQVFDQEHLGHQWLILHGZKLFKPLJKWODWHURQOHDGWRGHSDUWXUHIURP
QXFOHDWH ERLOLQJ DQG SRVVLEOH GDPDJH RI WKH IXHO SLQ 7KH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI DFWXDO &)' ZLWK D
VXEFRROHGERLOLQJPRGHOIRUWKHVLPXODWLRQRIDKRWFKDQQHOHQDEOHVDWOHDVWWKHFRPSDULVRQDQG
WKHHYDOXDWLRQRIGLIIHUHQWJHRPHWULFDOGHVLJQVRIWKHVSDFHUJULGVRIDIXHOURGEXQGOH

I. INTRODUCTION Therefore the supplementation or even the replacements of

Subcooled flow boiling is used in many industrial
applications and is characterized by large heat transfer
coefficients. However, this efficient heat transfer
mechanism is limited by the critical heat flux where the
heat transfer coefficient decreases leading to a rapid heater
temperature excursion potentially leading to heater melting
and destruction. The integrity of the fuel rods of a fuel
assembly of a nuclear reactor core can be endangered by
exceeding the critical heat flux. The critical heat flux
depends on the flow parameters and can be influenced by
the geometrical design of the fuel assemblies. Especially
the spacer grids equipped with mixing vanes play an
important role to increase the permissible heat flux. The
verification of design improvements and their influence on
the critical heat flux require very expensive experiments.
expensive experiments by numerical analyses are of
relevant interest in fuel assembly design.
In the past lots of empirical correlations for critical
heat flux were developed fitted to experiments and applied
in purpose-developed 1D codes. But these correlations are
valid only in the limited specified region of fluid
conditions and fluid properties and hold for a defined
geometry. Using lookup tables based on experiments, the
fluid parameter validity range can be extended. But also
this method is limited only to a defined geometry. The
independence on the geometry can only be achieved by the
application of CFD methods. The paper describes actual
attempts applying CFD to solve the described task and
investigates their capability to contribute to fuel assembly
design.

II. PHYSICAL MODEL
Currently the most conventional approach to
modelling two-phase flows with significant volume
fractions of both phases is the Eulerian two-fluid
framework of interpenetrating continua. Phase distribution
results from solving the phase-specific continuity
equations for volume fractions, and a separate set of
momentum equations is solved for each phase. For the
steam-water bubbly flow an energy equation is solved for
liquid, while vapour is assumed to be saturated
everywhere. The exchange of mass, momentum and heat
between phases are modelled using the correspondent
source terms in the phase-specific balance equations. For
the dispersed bubbly flows the interfacial momentum
transfer is normally modelled in terms of the drag force
due to the hydrodynamic resistance and the non-drag
forces. The non-drag forces represent the lift, the wall
lubrication, the turbulent dispersion, and other phenomena.
Formulation of a particular two-fluid model consists
therefore of analytical or empirical correlations, used for
calculating the interfacial forces, as well as the heat and
mass fluxes, as the functions of the average flow
parameters. Since most of these correlations are problem-
specific, the range of their validity has to be kept in mind.
The entire model has to be validated against experiments.
A model of the internal bubbly flow with wall boiling,
used in this work, is only briefly outlined in the rest of this
section. It will be published in more detail elsewhere.
,,$0RGHOOLQJRIVXEFRROHGERLOLQJDWDKHDWHGZDOO
Subcooled boiling is observed at heated surfaces,
when the heat flux applied to the wall is too high to be
transferred to the core flow of liquid by the single-phase
convective-conductive mechanisms. The term “subcooled”
means, that the saturation temperature is exceeded only in
a local vicinity of the wall, whereas the average
temperature in the bulk is still below saturation. A point,
where the local wall temperature reaches the saturation
temperature, is considered as the onset of nucleate boiling.
Steam bubbles are generated at the heated surface at
nucleation sites, with the surface density of these sites
depending on different factors, including the wall
superheat. Further downstream the attached bubbles grow
and then leave the wall at certain critical size. This critical
size may depend on the surface tension and on the flow
regime of the surrounding fluid. Heat transfer from the
wall is then conventionally described as being carried by
turbulent convection of liquid, by transient conduction due
to the departing bubbles, and by evaporation. Distribution
of the entire wall heat flux between these mechanisms
(wall heat partitioning) can be calculated by modelling
each mechanism in terms of the nucleation site density, the
2
g
Reno, NV USA, June 4-8, 2006
Paper 6261
size of departing bubbles, their detachment frequency, and
waiting time until the next bubble appears on the same site
(mechanistic modelling approach). When steam bubbles
move through the subcooled liquid, they condense,
releasing the latent heat.
The saturation temperature 7VDW and the evaporation
heat +/* were specified for the system pressure level and
kept constant in all calculations, presented below. This
assumption holds good for high pressures typical for the
nuclear reactor applications. The model however can also
operate with the locally calculated 7VDW and +/*. For water
and steam, the phase-specific densities ρ/ and ρ*, the heat
conductivity coefficients N/ and N*, and the heat capacities
&S/ and &S* are specified at saturation conditions for the
purposes of this work, while the solver supports the
general temperature- and pressure-dependent properties as
well.
Wall and liquid temperature values participate in all
constitutive model correlations in a relative form of the
wall superheat above saturation 7sup = 7: − 7VDW , and
the liquid subcooling below saturation 7VXE = 7VDW − 7/: .
Here 7: is the local wall temperature, and 7/: is the
characteristic temperature of liquid to define the
magnitude of subcooling, which locally scales the wall
boiling phenomenon, see later discussion.
In technical internal flows the controlled value is the
heating intensity, i.e. the wall heat flux. The given external
heat flux 4WRW, applied to the heated wall, is used for
heating of the subcooled liquid up to and slightly above the
saturation temperature (sensible heat), and for vapour
generation (latent heat). The sensible heat is commonly
modelled as being transported by the turbulent convection
and also by the additional liquid mixing mechanism due to
the bubbles, periodically emerging from the wall. The
latter is termed quenching and represents the effects of
transient conduction through the patches of the fresh bulk
liquid, coming to the wall to replace each departing steam
bubble. The quenching heat flux is noticeable on the wall
area fraction $), influenced by steam bubbles, whereas
the convection heat flux dominates on the remainig part of
the wall $)=-$). The overall heat balance at the wall,
the so-called heat partitioning, is usually written as a sum
of the three parts:
4WRW = 4) + 44 + 4( (1)
where 4), 44 and 4( are the heat flux components
due to turbulent convection, quenching, and evaporation
respectively. The turbulent convection heat flux is
calculated in the CFX model version using the same
temperature wall function as that for the pure liquid flow
without boiling (ANSYS, 2004), but multiplied by the area

fraction $). Wall functions, specially customised for
bubbly flows, will be incorporated in the model in future.
To close the model, the other heat flux components
44 and 4(, as well as the area fraction $), have to be
modelled as functions of local flow parameters, including
7VXS and 7VXE. Also a way of estimating the local
characteristic temperature of liquid 7/: in 7VXE must be
defined. After that the equation (1) can be solved
iteratively for the local wall temperature 7: , which
satisfies the wall heat flux balance.
Similar to the model by Kurul and Podowski (1991),
the CFX-5 model represents 44 in terms of the quenching
heat transfer coefficient K4
44 = $2 ) K4 (7: − 7/: ) (2)
and 4( via the evaporation mass flux on the wall
4( = P : + /* (3)
The model follows a conventional approach to
describe the nucleate wall boiling process as the periodic
release of vapour bubbles by each nucleation site:
π G: 3

P : = ρ* Q I (4)
6 As suggested by Mikic and Rohsenow (1969), the
⎛ (DG: )2 ⎞
$2 ) = min⎜⎜ π , 1⎟⎟ (5)
⎝ 4 ⎠
Here G: is the average bubble departure diameter, Q is
the surface density of nucleation sites, I is the departure
frequency, and D is the bubble influence factor. We don’t
model here the effect of area overlapping between the
P
neighbouring sites, therefore the evaporation rate  : is
calculated using the area-limited variant of the relation (4):
2 G:
:
P = ρ* ⋅ $2 ) ⋅Q I (6)
3 D2
Since in this work basically the same correlations for
G:, Q, I, D, and K4 are applied as those used by Kurul and
Podowski (1991), they are just listed in the next subsection
without any detailed discussion. The only commented
issue is the definition of 7/:, which is a new element in the
CFX-5 model.
The nucleation site density n depends on the surface
roughness and on the wettability of the solid-liquid pair.
For water and steel it is correlated depending on the wall
superheat according to Lemmert and Chawla (1977) as
3
g
Reno, NV USA, June 4-8, 2006
Paper 6261
Q (P− 2 )= (185 ⋅ 7sup (. ))1.805 (7)
For the bubble departure diameter G:, a following
correlation for water in the considered here pressure range
is available (Tolubinsky and Kostanchuk, 1970):
⎛ ⎛ −7 ⎞ ⎞
G = min⎜⎜ 0.6 PP ⋅ exp⎜⎜ VXE ⎟⎟, 1.4 PP ⎟⎟ (8)
⎝ 45 . ⎠
:
⎝ ⎠
From the further it can be seen, that the bubble
departure diameter G: has a strong influence on the share
of the heat transfer components and also on the modelled
amount of steam production.
A value of 2 is taken for the bubble influence factor a,
participating in the area fraction $) (5).
A simplest estimation for the bubble departure
frequency as the terminal rise velocity divided by the
bubble departure diameter is adopted here after Cole
(1960):
4 J ( ρ / − ρ* )
I = (9)
3G: ρ /
quenching heat transfer coefficient is calculated using the
analytical solution for one-dimensional transient
conduction:
2
K4 = I W: N / ρ / & SO (10)
π
where W: is waiting time between the bubble departure
and the appearance of a next bubble at the same nucleation
site. A simple assumption by Kurul and Podowski (1991)
is accepted also here, that the waiting time takes 80% of
the bubble departure period:
0.8
W: = (11)
I
Selection of the characteristic temperature 7/:is a key
point in the CFD-implementation of the wall boiling
model. Its importance arises from the spatially averaged
representation of the boiling phenomena by the
mechanistic model, which must be combined with the
detailed local nature of the CFD method. The constitutive
correlations for the quenching heat flux (2, 10) and for the
bubble departure diameter (8) were originally formulated

for the one-dimensional thermo-hydraulic models in terms
of the mean-flow liquid temperature. Some of the other
popular correlations, not used in this work, also depend on
the core flow velocity. Formal implementation of such
correlations as the CFD wall boundary conditions assumes
replacing the non-local core flow quantities by the near-
wall local ones. It can only be done for the extremely
coarse grids, with the first near-wall grid cell covering the
whole boundary layer thickness. With the near-wall grid,
which is adequate for the CFD turbulent wall treatment,
such a straightforward approach can significantly
overestimate the vapour generation, since the CFD
solution attempts to resolve the internal superheated part
of a temperature boundary layer in the liquid phase
(Menter, 2003). In CFX-5, the characteristic temperature
TLW is taken from the reconstructed temperature profile
using the temperature wall function and the given value of
the non-dimensional distance to the wall
+
\ = \ ρτ : μ .
In this work a constant value of 250 is used for y+,
although more sophisticated choices are also possible, for
example calculating y+ on the base of the local bubble
departure diameter, or on the base of the superheated
liquid layer thickness. The model, implemented in CFX-5,
is found virtually invariant to the near-wall grid cell size in
a wide range covering the logarithmic layer. Besides the
improved heat and mass transfer representation, this
implementation enables the use of the adequate grids for
the velocity wall function, which is a prerequisite for the
accurate calculation of the wall shear stress and the
pressure drop in internal flows.
Steam is assumed to be at saturation condition. Within
subcooled fluid (7/ < 7VDW) steam is condensing with the
mass transfer rate per unit volume:
P = max⎛⎜⎜ K/* (7VDW − 7/ ) $/* ,0 ⎞⎟⎟
+ /*
(12)
⎝ ⎠
With superheated fluid, fluid is evaporating at the rate:
P = max⎛⎜⎜ K/* (7/ − 7VDW ) $/* ,0 ⎞⎟⎟
+ /*
(13)
⎝ ⎠
$/* is the interfacial area, and K/* is the interfacial
heat transfer coefficient, calculated according to Ranz and
Marshall (1952):
N/ N
1X = / (2 + 0.6 Re1 / 2 Pr1 / 3 )
K/* = (14)
G% G%
4
g
Reno, NV USA, June 4-8, 2006
Paper 6261
To close the phase transition model in the bulk bubbly
flow with a mean bubble diameter G%, Kurul (1991) and
also Anglart and Nylund (1995) proposed to calculate the
bubble diameter G% locally as a linear function of liquid
subcooling 7VXE:
G %1 (7VXE − 7VXE, 2 ) + G % 2 (7VXE,1 − 7VXE )
G% = (15)
7VXE,1 − 7VXE, 2
For typical nuclear energy applications these authors
proposed reference bubble diameters at the two reference
subcooling conditions: G%=0.1 mm at 7VXE=13.5 K and
G%=2 mm at 7VXE= .7KHEXEEOHVL]HLQWKHEXONKDVD
direct influence on the interfacial area density and on the
condensation respective evaporation rate in the bulk.
,,%0RGHOOLQJRIWKHPRPHQWXPWUDQVIHU
For the liquid phase the SST (Shear Stress Transport)
turbulence model by Menter (1994) was applied, which
operates for the considered here internal flows in long
pipes and channels similar to the k-ε model. The influence
of the gas bubbles on turbulence in liquid was modelled
using Sato’s (1975) eddy viscosity model for bubble-
induced turbulence.
Besides the drag forces, representing the flow
resistance and modelled here using the correlation by Ishii
and Zuber, the non-drag forces have also to be modelled to
predict the correct flow structure. Namely, the lift force,
the turbulent dispersion and the wall lubrication force
should be considered. In the following expressions the
forces acting on gas bubbles are given.
The lift force is defined in a standard way as:
)OLIW = −&OLIW ρ / (8 * − 8 / ) × rot 8 /
(16)
using the gas and liquid velocities 8* and 8/ and the
liquid density ρ/. Tomiyama (1998) has performed
extensive investigations of the lift force coefficient &OLIW as
a function of the bubble size in the air-water two-phase
flow. He has found a sign change of &OLIW: when growing G%
passes a value of about 5.8 mm, the lift coefficient
becomes negative.
The wall lubrication force pushes the bubbles away
from the wall. The available model correlations have been
tested only for the bubbly flows without bubble generation
at the wall, and therefore their use with the wall boiling
model is debatable. Nevertheless the two known
correlations have been experimentally used in this work: a
correlation by Antal (1991)
 g
Reno, NV USA, June 4-8, 2006
Paper 6261

):$ = −
ρ: α ⎛ G ⎞ 2Q
⎜⎜ &: 1 − &: 2 % ⎟⎟8 UHO
G% ⎝ \⎠
(17)

and another correlation by Tomiyama (1989)

):7 = −&:
G α ⎛⎜ 1
%
−
1 ⎞
⎟ ρ 8 2 Q (18)
2 ⎝⎜ \ 2
(' − \) ⎠
2 ⎟ / UHO

with Q as the normal vector to the wall, G% as the

bubble size diameter, 8UHO as the velocity difference
between the phases, and α as the gas volume fraction. The
force is dependent on the distance to the wall \. Antal
(1991) proposed an inverse proportionality to \, whereas
Tomiyama (1998) proposed for a pipe of diameter ' an (a) (b)
inverse quadratic proportionality to \. The latter model has Fig. 1: Calculated distribution of the vapour volume
been extensively validated for adiabatic air water bubbly fraction (a) and the water temperature (b)
2.0 2.0
flows, whereas other investigations showed, that the model Taverage
of Antal seems to be more appropriate for wall boiling Twall
flows (see Koncar et. al 2005). A final statement on this 1.6 1.6
issue cannot yet be done and further investigations are
necessary.
1.2 1.2
The applied turbulent dispersion force is based on the
z [m]

z [m]
Favre average of the interfacial drag force (see Burns et. al
2004) and is calculated for a two phase flow according to 0.8 0.8
Experiment

3&'
CFX-5
gradα
) =− W
8 0.4 0.4
4G %
(19)
1−α
'LVS UHO
W

0.0 0.0
with &' as the bubble drag coefficient, μt the dynamic 0 0.25 0.5
steam volume fraction [-]
0.75 460 480 500 520 540 560
[K]
eddy viscosity of liquid, and σt the turbulent Schmidt (a) (b)
number for the volume fraction of liquid phase. Fig. 2: Cross sectional averaged vapour volume
fractions (a) and temperatures (b)
2.0 2.0
III. VALIDATION OF THE MODEL
1.6 1.6
,,,$&RPSDULVRQWRH[SHULPHQWV

An experimental arrangement suited for the 1.2 1.2

z [m]

comparison of measured and calculated results is an

z [m]

upward water flow through a heated tube. The boundary 0.8

0.8
conditions can be clearly specified and the resulting cross
sectional averaged steam volume fraction can be measured dB
0.4
by gamma densitometry with acceptable accuracy. 0.4 dW
Conv
Numerous experiments of this kind are reported in the Quench
literature. Examples are the tests published by Bartolomej Evap 0.0
0.0 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
et al. (1967, 1982). The boiling model, described in the 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 [m]
previous chapter, was applied to simulate these [-] (b)
experiments to show the plausibility of the calculated (a)
results and to compare the cross sectional averaged steam Fig. 3: Calculated heat flux partition (a) and bubble size
volume fraction with the measurements. diameter at departure and in the bulk (b)

5
 g
Reno, NV USA, June 4-8, 2006
Paper 6261

The heated tube has a diameter of 15.4 mm, and a
heated length of z=2.0 m. The heat flux was 5.7.105 W/m2.
The mass flow of the water at 4.5 MPa amounted to 900.0
kg/(s.m2). The inlet subcooling was 58.2 K. The quality
x=0 was reached 1.75 m downstream the tube inlet.
The tube was modelled in 2D cylindrical geometry.
The two fluid model with gas as dispersed and water as
continuous phase was used. The lift force according to Zun
calculations, it can be concluded, that the presented model
is best suited for pressures in the region of 1.5 to 5 Mpa,
for heat fluxes at about 1 MW/m2 and for mass flow rates
at about 1000 kg/(m2s).
2.0 540 0.8

Volume Fraction [-]

(1980), the wall force according to Antal et al. (1991), and 1.5 535 0.6
the turbulent dispersion force according to Lopez de
UWater, z = 0.5 m
Bertodano (1994) were considered as non-drag forces.

[m/s]

[K]
1.0 530 UWater, z = 1.75 m 0.4
Figure 1 (a) shows the calculated distribution of the UVapour, z = 1.75 m
steam volume fraction in the bulk and (b) of the water VF2, z = 1.75 m
temperature. The presentation is stretched in radial 0.5 525 TWater , z = 1.75 m
0.2
direction. The tube is heated from the right side. The
central symmetry axis is on the left side. Figure 2a shows
the comparison of measured (asterisks) and calculated 0.0 520 0.0
(solid lines) cross sectional averaged steam volume 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
fraction along the axial tube length. Both, the point of R [m]
boiling inception and the increasing of the vapour volume Fig. 4: Radial distribution
fraction over the height are calculated with good
agreement to the measurements. Figure 2b) presents the 0.6
cross sectional averaged water temperature (blue solid 1.5 MPa
Vapour Volume Fraction [-]

line) and the wall temperature (red solid line).
Measurements are represented by asterisks. Also the
temperatures are calculated with good agreement to the
experiment.
The calculated wall heat partitioning (Fig. 3a) shows,
that at the beginning almost all heat flux is transferred by
the single phase convection, whereas with increasing tube
length quenching and evaporation become larger. The
bubble size diameter at departure (Fig. 3b) in the boiling
model was calculated according to Eq. (8). The bubble size
in the bulk was considered directly dependent on the water
temperature according Eq. (15). The blue line in Fig. 3b
presents the cross sectional averaged values.
In Figure 4 radial profiles are shown for the liquid
velocity (blue lines, left axis), the gas velocity (green line,
left axis), the gas volume fraction (red line, right axis) and
the liquid temperature (black line, left temperature axis).
At z=0.5 m the flow is still single phase. The blue dotted
line shows the typical profile of a liquid flow in a tube. At
1.75 m steam is found. The vapour velocity flow profile is
shown by the green line, the liquid profile is seen
accelerated by the vapour.. The consideration of the
bubble forces results, that the maximum of the vapour
volume fraction is calculated at a distance from the wall.
The liquid temperature (black solid line) is calculated
maximal at the wall.
The models were applied for different system
pressures, to show, that they are valid also for an extended
parameter region. Fig. 5 shows as an example the
dependence of the results on the system pressure, which is
very well reproduced by the simulations. Summarizing all
3.0 MPa
4.5 MPa
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05
Quality x [x]
Fig. 5: Measured (asterisks) and calculated (solid lines)
vapour volume fractions dependent on the quality x
,,,%,GHQWLILFDWLRQRIPRVWVHQVLWLYHPRGHOSDUDPHWHUV
DQGQHHGVIRUEHWWHUH[SHULPHQWV
In the actual calculations a quite simple correlation for
the bubble size diameter at departure was used (see eq. 8)
In the literature much more complicated correlations are
known (e.g. Unal 1976). To investigate the influence, the
bubble size was doubled. The bubbles growth longer at the
wall before they leave into the bulk. The calculation with
the doubled bubble size in the Figures is represented by
the solid lines, whereas the dotted lines shows the
reference case. More heat contributes to evaporation (see
Fig. 6a). The effect on the cross sectional averaged void
fraction however is partially compensated by a higher
condensation rate (see Fig 6b).

6
 g
Reno, NV USA, June 4-8, 2006
Paper 6261

interfacial area [m -1] Although the influence of the bubble sizes on the
0 1000 2000 3000 vapour volume fraction is limited, the calculations show
2.0 2.0
the influence on the relation of the microscopic
mechanisms. The bubble size at departure has a large
1.6 1.6
influence on the wall heat partition. The simulated bubble
size in the bulk influences via the interfacial area the
condensation rate. Unfortunately the measurement of the
1.2 1.2 bubble sizes by actual techniques is very difficult.
Problems are the very narrow channels of about 10 mm,
z [m]
z [m]

the vapour bubble size which is expected in the region of

0.8 0.8
0.5 to 2 mm and the pressure and temperature of the fluid
typical in a nuclear reactor. The design of experiments
0.4 0.4
using model fluids enables the enlargement of the
Conv condensation geometry and easier determination of cross sectional
Quench evaporation
vapour distribution. Recent attempts applying X ray
Evap interfacial area
0.0 0.0 tomography are very promising.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60
[-] transfer rate [kg s-1 m-3]
(a) (b)
IV. SIMULATION OF A HOT CHANNEL OF A FUEL
Fig. 6: Influence of doubling the bubble diameter at ASSEMBLY
departure on the wall heat flux partition (a) and on the
condensation rate (b) (dotted lines – reference case) The fuel pins of a nuclear reactor in fuel assemblies
are arranged in a lattice. Spacer grids are mounted to
The bubble size in the bulk has via the interfacial area guarantee the constant distance of the pins. Furthermore
an influence on the condensation rate (see. Fig. 7a). The mixing vanes at the spacer grids generate a swirl in the
effect on the vapour volume fraction (see Fig. 7b) is coolant water, to enhance the heat transfer from the rods to
partially compensated by the radial temperature profile the coolant in the hot channels and to limit boiling. CFX
(see Fig. 4). Most of the vapour is found in areas of calculations of a hot channel between four rods were
temperatures near the saturation temperature and small performed (see Fig. 8). To investigate the effect of the
condensation rates. swirl, CFX-calculations of the phenomena in a hot channel
between the fuel pins with and without swirl set at the inlet
interfacial area [m -1] at the bottom were performed.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2.0
2.0

1.6 periodic
periodic
1.6

1.2
1.2 Rod 4 Rod 1
z [m]
z [m]

0.8
0.8 Experiment
CFX-5 periodic
0.4
0.4
condensation
evaporation
interfacial area 0.0
0.0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75
Rod 3 Rod 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 steam volume fraction [-]
transfer rate [kg s-1 m -3 ] (b)
(a) periodic

Fig. 7: Influence of doubling the bubble diameter in the

bulk on the condensation rate (a) and on the vapour Fig. 8: Vapour Volume fraction distribution in the cross
volume fraction (b) (dotted lines – reference case) section at z=0.475 m without consideration of an inlet
swirl

7
 g
Reno, NV USA, June 4-8, 2006
Paper 6261

velocity at the circumference of the circular swirl was

The grid represents a subchannel between 4 rods assumed to be b) 1 m/s, c) 2 m/s and d) 3 m/s.
having a diameter of 9 mm and a rod distance of 12.6 mm.
The faces at the low x and high x respective low y and
Y [2 + Y 2\
high y were simulated as periodic boundary conditions, VZLUO = (20)
assuming that the channel is infinitely extended in these
Y [2 + Y \2 + Y ]2
four directions. A section between two spacer grids having
a length of z=0.5 m was simulated. The thermodynamic
and transport water properties were set for a pressure of
vapour volume fraction [-]
15.7 Mpa, typical for PWR conditions. The subcooling at 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
0.5
the inlet of the modeled section was set to 12 K and the 0.5
water velocity Y] at the inlet (low z) was set to 5 m/s. b)
First test calculations revealed, that the assumed lift 0.4
c)
0.4
d)
coefficient Clift=0.288 like in air water adiabatic flow is
too high. Caused by the shifted water velocity profile by
the generated steam all generated vapour remained at the 0.3 0.3

z [m]
[m]
rod surface. Furthermore investigations with air water flow
indicate, that the system of non drag forces, which yields 0.2 0.2
very good results with velocities of about 1 m/s
overestimates the gas fraction wall peak at high water
0.1 0.1
velocities > 4m/s (see Lucas et. al 2004). For the here
swirl
presented calculations therefore a smaller lift force without swirl
coefficient of Clift =0.06 was assumed. 0.0
0.0
604 606 608 610 612
Figure 8 shows the vapour fraction distribution in the 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 water temperature [K]
channel at z = 0.475m with equally distributed inlet [-]

velocity without swirl. The figure shows maximum vapour

generation at the smallest distance between the rods. Fig. 10: Axial profiles of Fig. 11: Influence of the
the swirl (see eq. 20) for swirl on the cross sectional
the investigated cases averaged vapour volume
(Y]=5m/s) fraction and water tempe-
rature for case d)
φ
0.5 0.5
Conv
Quench
0.4 Evap 0.4

0.3 0.3
z [m]

z [m]

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
Fig. 9: Velocity field at the inlet: axial velocity 5m/s, 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80
velocity at the circumference of the swirl 3m/s (case d) [-] [kg s-1 m-3 ]
(a) (b)
To investigate the effect of the swirl caused by mixing Fig. 12: Cross sectional averaged Heat flux partition (a)
vanes of a spacer grid, calculations considering a swirl and condensation rate (b) for the case d) (solid lines) and
were performed. Additional to the z-velocity component of the reference case without swirl (dotted lines)
Y]=5m/s corresponding x and y-velocity components Y[ and
Y\ were defined on the inlet (see Fig. 9). The transversal

8
 g
Reno, NV USA, June 4-8, 2006
Paper 6261

Figure 10 shows the relation of the horizontal velocity determines the interfacial area and the condensation rate
components to the overall value of the velocity of the vapour bubbles.
corresponding to equation 20 along the vertical axis z. In
Figure 11 the influence of the swirl on the axial profile of
the cross sectional averaged vapour volume fraction for
the case d) is shown. Indeed the cross sectional averaged
vapour volume fraction is reduced by the swirl, whereas
the averaged temperature is almost not influenced. By the
swirl the tangential velocity near the wall is increased. As a
consequence higher portions of the wall heat flux are
transformed by single phase convection (see Fig. 12a)
whereas the share of evaporation is decreased (see
Fig. 12b).
Figure 13 shows the calculated vapour volume
fraction distribution at z=0.475m considering the swirl.
Caused by the centrifugal forces, the heavier fluid
component - the water - is pushed outwards whereas large
amount of the lighter component - the vapour - is collected
in the center of the channel. In the shadow of the rods
bubble accumulations are calculated.
Very informative is the distribution of the Fig. 13: Vapour Volume fraction distribution in the cross
superheating 7VXS at the rod surface of rod 1 shown in section at z=0.475 m considering a swirl (case d) s. Fig. 9)
Figure 13 for the 4 cases a) to d). Without swirl a
0.5 0.5
symmetric distribution is found showing maximum values [K]
at locations with the smallest distance of the adjacent rods. 8
0.4 0.4
In contrast the here assumed swirl generates a non 7.5
equally distributed wall superheating. Hot spots (eg. at
0.3 0.3 7
z=0.15, f=0.3) might be the first locations, where later on
Z [m]

z [m]
6.5
critical heat flux occurs.
0.2 0.2 6
Although only a preliminary state toward critical heat
flux is simulated essential parameters like the swirl, the 5.5
0.1 0.1
cross flow between adjacent channels and concentration 5

regions of bubbles can be determined. Calculating the

0.0 0.0
temperature at the rod surface, critical regions can be 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Φ Φ
identified, which might later on lead to departure from
nucleate boiling and possible damage of the fuel pin. The (a) (b)
application of actual CFD with a subcooled boiling model 0.5 0.5
[K]
for the simulation of a hot channel enables at least the
comparison and the evaluation of different geometrical 0.4 0.4
8

designs of the spacer grids. 7.5

0.3 0.3 7
Z [m]
z [m]

6.5
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 0.2 0.2 6

5.5
Capabilities of the up-to-date two-fluid CFD method 0.1 0.1
5
of simulating steam-water bubbly flows with phase
transition are demonstrated. To simulate boiling at a 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
heated wall, the phenomena on the micro-scale have been
Φ Φ
modelled by appropriate closure relations. The given heat (c) (d)
is removed from the wall by different mechanisms. The
size of bubbles, emerging from the wall, has been proven Fig. 14: Distribution of the wall superheating temperature
to have a large influence on the heat distribution between at the surface of rod 1 without swirl (a) and considering a
the different heat flux components. The size of bubbles in
swirl (cases b to d) (definition of the angle φ see Fig. 9)
the bulk is correlated to the local liquid subcooling, since it

9
 g
Reno, NV USA, June 4-8, 2006
Paper 6261

It has been shown that besides the drag force also the temperature
consideration of the lateral non-drag forces is essential for \ non-dimensional distance to the wall
the realistic simulation of the two-phase flow field. )lift bubble lift force
Namely the lift force, the wall lubrication force, and the )W wall lubrication force
turbulent dispersion force are important components. )Disp turbulent dispersion force
Correlations, applied here to model these forces, were α volume fraction of bubbles
validated using the extensive experimental data on the ρG vapour density
adiabatic air-water flows, carried out in the FZ Rossendorf. ρL liquid density
Applicability ranges of these correlations to the vapour-
τW wall shear stress
liquid flows with phase transition have to be additionally
studied in future. The experimental design is to be
optimised to deliver the relevant information for the CFD
model improvement. The determination of the spatial
REFERENCES
vapour volume distribution is necessary to support further
model developments. The determination of bubble sizes
1. Anglart, H., Nylund, O., Kurul, N., Podowski, M.Z.,
would be desirable. Nevertheless, despite its current
1997, CFD prediction of flow and phase distribution
development state, the used CFD model yield correct
in fuel assemblies with spacers, NURETH-7, 1995
quantitative results and predicts right trends in parametric
Saratoga Springs, New York, Nuclear Engineering &
studies.
Design Vol. 177, 1997, pp. 215-228

2. Antal., S.P., Lahey, R.T. , Flaherty, J.E., 1991.

Analysis of phase distribution in fully developed
NOMENCLATURE laminar bubbly two-phase flow, International Journal
of Multiphase Flow 7 pp. 635-652
D bubble influence factor
$) wall fraction cooled by single phase 3. Baglietto, E., Ninokata, H. 2005. Improved turbulence
convection modeling for performance evaluation of novel fuel
$) wall fraction cooled by quenching designs, 11th International Topical Meeting on
$/* interfacial area density Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics (NURETH-11),
&3/ specific heat capacity of liquid Avignon France Oct 2005, Paper 331
G:  bubble departure diameter on the wall
G% mean bubble diameter in the bulk flow 4. Burns, A.D., Frank, T., Hamill, I. and Shi, J.-M. 2004.
I bubble departure frequency The favre averaged drag model for turbulence
J gravitational acceleration dispersion in Eulerian multi-phase flows. 5th Int.
K/* interfacial heat transfer coefficient Conf. on Multiphase Flow, ICMF’2004, Yokohama,
+/* evaporation enthalpy Japan
K4 coefficient for heat transfer by
quenching 5. Cole, R., 1960, A photographic study of pool boiling
N/ liquid heat conductivity in the region of the critical heat flux, AIChE Journal
1 nucleation site density Vol. 6, pp. 533-542
1X Nusselt number
3U Prandtl number of liquid 6. Egorov, Y., Menter, F., 2004. Experimental
4( heat flux by evaporation Implementation of the RPI Wall Boiling Model in
4) heat flux by single phase convection CFX-5.6, Technical Report ANSYS / TR-04-10,
44 heat flux by quenching ANSYS Germany GmbH.
4WRW total heat flux
7. Erwin, E.A., Tryggvason, G., 1997. The rise of
5H Reynolds number
bubbles in a vertical shear flow, Journal of Fluids
7/ liquid temperature
Engineering 119, pp. 443-449
7VDW staturation temperature
7VXE=7VDt-7/ liquid subcooling 8. Krepper, E., Egorov, Y., 2005. CFD-Modelling of
7VXS=7:-7VDW superheating Subcooled Boiling and Application to Simulate a Hot
W: waiting time Channel of a Fuel Assembly, 13th International
7:  wall temperature Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Beijing, China,
Τ/: liquid characteristic near-wall May 16-20 2005, ICONE 13-50245

10

9. Koncar, B., Krepper, E., Egorov, Y., 2005. CFD
Modelling of Subcooled Flow Boiling for Nuclear
Engineering Applications, International Conference
“Nuclear Energy for New Europe” Bled, Slovenia,
September 5-8, 2005, Paper 140
10. Koncar, B., Mavko, B., Hassan Y.A., 2005. Two-phase
wall function for modeling of turbulent boundary
layer in subcooled boiling flow. 11th International
Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal-
Hydraulics (NURETH-11), Avignon France Oct 2005,
Paper 443
11. Lahey, R.T., Lopez de Bertodano, M., Jones, O.C.,
1993. Phase distribution in complex geometry
conduits, Nuclear Engineering and Design 141, pp.
177-201.
12. Lemmert, M., Chawla, J.M., 1977, Influence of flow
velocity on surface boiling heat transfer coefficient,
Heat transfer in Boiling, Hahne, E. and Grigull, U.
(Eds.) Academic Press and Hemisphere, ISBN: 0-12-
314450-7, pp. 237-247
13. Lopez de Bertodano, M., (1992), Turbulent bubbly
two-phase flow in a triangular duct, Ph. D. Thesis,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York, USA
14. Lucas, D., Shi, J.-M., Krepper, E. and Prasser, H.-M.
2004. Models for the forces acting on bubbles in
comparison with experimental data for vertical pipe
flow. 3rd International Symposium on Two-Phase
Flow Modelling and Experimentation, Pisa, Italy,
Paper ha04
15. Lucas, D., Krepper, E., Prasser, H.-M., 2005.
Development of co-current air-water flow in a vertical
pipe, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 31 (2005) 1304–1328
16. Mikic, B.B., Rohsenow, 1969, W.M., A new
correlation of pool-boiling data including the fact of
heating surface characteristics, ASME Journal of Heat
Transfer Vol. 91, pp. 245-250
17. Ranz, W.E., Marshall, W.R., 1952, Evaporation from
drops, Chemical engineering progress Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 141-146
11
View publication stats
g
Reno, NV USA, June 4-8, 2006
Paper 6261
18. Sato, Y.,Sadatomi, M.,Sekoguchi, K., 1981.
Momentum and heat transfer in two-phase bubble
flow, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, Vol. 7, (1981), pp. 167-
177
19. Tolubinsky, V.I., Kostanchuk, D.M., 1970, Vapour
bubbles groth rate and heat transfer intensity at
subcooled water boiling; Heat Transfer 1970,
Preprints of papers presented at the 4th International
Heat Transfer Conference, Paris, Vol. 5, Paper No. B-
2.8
20. Tomiyama, A. et al., 1995. Effects of Eötvös number
and dimensionless liquid volumetric flux on lateral
motion of a bubble in a laminar duct flow, Advances
in Multiphase Flow pp. 3-15.
21. Tomiyama, A., 1998. Struggle with computational
bubble dynamics, Third International Conference on
Multiphase Flow, ICMF'98, Lyon, France, June 8-12,
1998
22. Troshko, A.A., Y.A. Hassan, Y.A., 2001. A two-
equation turbulence model of turbulent bubbly flows,
Int. J. Multiphase Flow 27, 2001, pp. 1965-2000
23. Ünal, H.C. 1976, Maximum bubble diameter,
maximum bubble growth time and bubble growth rate,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer Vol.
19 pp. 643-649
24. Wintterle, Th. 2004. Development of a numerical
boundary condition for the simulation of nucleate
boiling at heated walls, Diplomarbeit Universität
Stuttgart, IKE - 8- D- 014
25. Yao, W., Morel, C., 2004. Volumetric interfacial area
prediction in upward bubbly two-phase flow”, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer 47, pp. 307-328
26. Zeitoun, O., M. Shoukri, 1997, Axial void fraction
profile in low pressure subcooled flow boiling, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer Vol. 40, No. 4 pp. 869-879
27. Zun, I., 1980. The transverse migration of bubbles
influenced by walls in vertical bubbly flow,
International Journal of Multiphase Flow 6, pp. 583-
588