Nuclear Engineering and Design 393 (2022) 111794

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

Machine learning based prediction of subcooled bubble condensation

behavior, validation with experimental and numerical results
Vijay Mohan Nagulapati a, 1, SalaiSargunan S Paramanantham a, b, 1, Aleksey Ni a,
Senthil Kumar Raman c, Hankwon Lim a, d, *
a
School of Energy and Chemical Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan 44919, Republic of Korea
b
Carbon Value Co, Ltd, 2802 A-dong, 97, Centum Jungang-ro Haeundae-gu, Busan, Republic of Korea
c
School of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering (SAME), Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, Krishnankoil, Tamil Nadu 626126, India
d
Department of Energy Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan 44919, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Measuring a full life cycle of condensing subcooled bubbles using either the experimental and/or numerical
Nuclear reactor approaches is a very challenging problem. In present study this problem is solved through Machine Learning
Machine Learning techniques using existing data sets from both experiment and numerical results. Two different machine leaning
Subcooled flow boiling
methods, Linear Regression (LR) and Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) are trained to predict the bubble
Direct contact condensation
Bubble condensation prediction
condensing life-history. The models are trained with 70% of data and validated using 30 % data from the
collected datasets. The predicted results are compared with both numerical and experimental results and model
prediction obtained good agreement. Additionally, the validated machine learning models are used to predict
various bubble diameters ranging between 1 and 6 mm. These predicted results give a much better understanding
of subcooled bubble condensation behavior without the need for extensive experiments and numerical studies.

1. Introduction
Machine Learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) based ap­
proaches have revolutionised the engineering sector by facilitating
mechanistic understanding of complex phenomena. These ML and AI
based methods have the ability to process data and correlate between
process variables to predict a particular process characteristic. This has
enabled to circumvent the need to build complex first-principle models
while maintaining predictive accuracies. This is hugely helpful in en­
gineering applications where first principle understanding is difficult
and elusive to capture using numerical approaches. ML methods have
been implemented in a wide variety of engineering applications like for
example, solving heat transfer equation in manufacturing and engi­
neering applications by Zobeiry et al. (Zobeiry and Humfeld, 2021),
computing vapour-water two-phase flow in tube with uniform and non-
uniform heating by Shang et al. (Shang, 2005), for understanding and
predicting circulating fluidized bed (CFB) riser flow characteristics by
Chew et al. (Chew and Cocco, 2020) and predicting axial solid holdup by
Nagulapati et al. (Upadhyay et al., 2022), predicting metal sorption into
biochar by Zhu et al. (Zhu et al., 2019), to understand the complex
electrochemical degradation of lithium ion battery and for predicting
state of health and capacity estimations by Nagulapati et al. (Nagulapati,
2021; Nagulapati, 2021), to predict the performance of rotating ma­
chinery by Han et al. (Han et al., 2018), ML based phase change model
for simulating bubble condensation by Tang et al. (Tang, 2021). The
application of ML based approach, which is essentially a black-box
approach that does not require detailed assumptions or governing
equations is to overcome the difficulties associated with building a first-
principle model for these complex engineering processes while still
having sufficient predictive accuracy. However, given the fact that these
ML models are predominantly black box models, deriving a physical
relationship and to produce interpretable solution is not possible. To
avoid this drawback, use of regression analysis techniques like Linear
Regression (LR) and Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), that are
interpretable and allow for understanding the physical relationships are
emphasized (Theßeling et al., 2020).
Bubble condensation is one of the primary phenomena in the fluid-
based heat transfer industry such as nuclear power plants, electronics

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hklim@unist.ac.kr (H. Lim).
1
Co-first authors.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2022.111794
Received 7 December 2021; Received in revised form 15 March 2022; Accepted 26 April 2022
Available online 4 May 2022
0029-5493/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
V.M. Nagulapati et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic for machine learning prediction of bubble condensation based on experimental and CFD generated data.
cooling systems, boilers, chemical engineering applications and so on.
The bubble condensing behaviour is usually studied as a direct contact
condensation through which heat and mass transfer is observed (Warrier
et al., 2002). Understanding the bubble condensing behavior is chal­
lenging even with current technology. The condensing behavior occurs
depending on the bubble column condition, heated wall material, and
application. Even though the life of the condensing bubble is in micro
level time step, during this time bubble changes its shape, and size.
Furthermore, the complexity of bubble dynamics has a great impact on
bubble lifetime, pressure drop and flow instability in the bubble column.
Our main target is to develop the better understanding of nuclear
reactor safety monitor systems. In the rose, we implement the machine
learning algorithm (Sobes et al., 2021) for prediction of bubble
condensation behavior. In the process of reactor core cooling, the
nucleate bubble is generated from the core wall, and it gets condensed in
subcooled liquid. The process of the nucleated bubble getting detached
from wall and condensing within the subcooled liquid is influenced by
many factors such as subcooled temperature, pressure, velocity, bubble
size, and shape. In the nucleated boiling, bubble is one of the sources for
heat and mass transfer and the bubble condensing time is based on the
size of the nucleate bubble (Paramanantham, 2020). So, prediction of
bubble condensation with respect to size of the bubble helps to under­
stand the design of cooling system. Utilization of machine learning
method to predict the bubble condensation behavior will facilitate
better understanding of bubble condensing phenomenon that will help
to develop nuclear reactor safety monitor systems.
Generally, studying of condensing bubble behavior is based on
theoretic investigation, experimental assessment, and numerical
models. Using the analytical study, behavior of static and dynamics
bubble condensing behavior was investigated (Zuber, 1960; Okhotsim­
skii, 1988), but there was an insufficient degree of accuracy and also the
influence of the shape and size of bubbles was not taken into account. On
the other hand, experimental methods are applied for studying the
behavior of condensing bubble, which makes it possible to take into
account/detect almost any parameters, to a certain degree, but also re­
quires a significant investment of time and money and not always
possible to perform. For the last few decades, researchers studied
various aspects of subcooled bubble condensing behavior such as
interfacial heat transfer, changing dynamics of bubble shape, and size,
influence of fluid numbers. Furthermore, condensing behavior of bubble
life, bubble velocity, collapse behavior, and low-and high-pressure ef­
fects were studied through various experiments (Kim and Park, 2011;
Lucasa and Prasserb, 2007; Harada et al., 2010; Brucker and Sparrow,
1977; Yang, 2021; Qiu, 2020). There are other drawbacks in experi­
mental approach. For example, due to the many factors studied in ex­
periments, it is sometimes difficult to accurately trace the entire high-
speed dynamics of a bubble due to condensation occurring in less than
2
Nuclear Engineering and Design 393 (2022) 111794
a microsecond. Therefore, numerical simulation is another preferred
method for study the condensing bubble dynamics (S Paramanantham
et al., 2018).
Numerical simulation is a flexible tool for studying the static and
dynamics characteristics of bubble condensation and allows to carry out
research that goes far beyond what is possible experimentally. In nu­
merical modelling, it is necessary to apply various schemes and ap­
proaches in order for results to be conformed to the experiment.
Following this path, the researchers have implemented different
methods and approaches to obtain accurate results, through numerical
method for the problem of bubble dynamics. The following methods,
schemes and approaches were used in modeling, namely: semi-implicit
moving particles, moving boundary, interfacial particles of two-phase
interface, coupling between momentum and energy equation, coales­
cence of stagnant liquid and various types of heat and mass transfer
model, based on mesh approach such as adaptive mesh, and also fixed
grid method and moving grid (Tian et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2010; Chen
et al., 2011; Zuo et al., 2013). Furthermore, various types of bubble
conditions such as interfacial heat transfer for water temperature, ve­
locity and bubble condensing diameter, bubble vertex generation
mechanisms, bubble nucleation, generated and detached, film boiling,
flow boiling, and condensation, single and multiple bubble dynamics (S
Paramanantham et al., 2018; Bahreini et al., 2015; Zhenyu et al., 2015;
Xiaohang et al., 2017; Paramanantham et al., 2020; Paramanantham
et al., 2020; Liu, 2020; Bahreini, 2021). Even though the numerical
method can freely implement various approaches to bubble condensa­
tion when using a stationary grid with a moving boundary for bubble
condensation, the volume fraction of the occupied bubble level de­
creases during condensation, and after a certain amount of bubble
condensation, the loss of the bubble grid volume cannot be tracked. Due
to loss of mesh volume, it is impossible to capture the full bubble
condensation history. For example, 4.9 mm size bubble condensation
history was captured until the bubble diameter reached 1.5 mm and the
rest of the remaining bubble history did not capture. To capture the
remaining bubble condensation history, but without conducting addi­
tional simulation and/or experiment the machine learning (ML)
methods were used on existing data to predict the bubble condensation
history.
Machine learning methods have proved their capability in different
applications related to process industry (Ge et al., 2017; Yan, 2022).
Machine learning methods have received increased attention in the field
of fluid mechanics in recent times (Babanezhad et al., 2020; Brunton
et al., 2020; Mesgarpour et al., 2022). Bubble columns are widely used in
chemical industry in various exothermic reactions where heat and mass
transfer are crucial. By learning from data collected from previous ex­
periments and numerical studies, a machine learning model is trained to
predict the bubble condensation by correlating various influencing
V.M. Nagulapati et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 393 (2022) 111794

covariances between the input variables based on which the outputs are
calculated. LR and GPR based ML models are considered given their
ability to map the dependencies and covariances between the input/
independent and output/dependent variables.
In this paper, machine learning techniques were implemented to
capture the complete subcooled condensing bubble life history. The
bubble condensing history is one of the important factors required for
understanding the heat and mass transfer from the heated surface to the
subcooled fluid flow channel. This process is difficult to measure and/or
capture, both experimentally and numerically. To solve this problem, a
machine learning method is used, utilizing existing datasets created
from experiments and numerical results. This prediction uses LR and
GPR techniques to train the data to observe bubble life history to better
design the subcooled flow path for various purposes.

2. Mathematical formulation

2.1. In-house code details

Predicting the bubble condensation history using Machine Learning

(ML) techniques need the data set for further investigation of bubble
condensing history. To derive bubble condensation datasets for the
prediction of bubble condensation, author’s previous studies were taken
into account. A previous study used in-house code developed for a two-
dimensional, two-phase homogeneous mixture method based on the
fully compressible Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) method. In
addition, the interface between the vapour and liquid phases was
defined utilizing the continuous surface force approach (Ha and Park,
Fig. 2. Computational domain for single bubble condensation. 2016; Ha et al., 2017; Hashemi et al., 2020). To solve the governing
equations the implicit dual-time techniques and equations were imple­
parameters. Knowledge about bubble condensation behavior is crucial mented. The stepwise formation, numerical schemes, bubble conditions
in certain applications such as in terms of reactor performance as the and procedures, and other simulation related details can be found in the
bubble size is directly proportional to the specific area and thus to heat authors previous works (S Paramanantham et al., 2018; Para­
and mass transfer rates. In this study, Linear Regression (LR) (Kunz, manantham et al., 2020; Paramanantham et al., 2020).
2021) and Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) (Byun, 2021) based ma­ The numerical simulation was based on a multiphase homogenous
chine learning models are trained based on a database where data points mixture flow. A mixture density with compressible, thermal effects, and
are collected from the previous experiments and numerical simulations an axisymmetric two-dimensional model were applied. The system of
as shown in the schematic in Fig. 1. Interpretable solutions are desired generalised curvilinear coordinates are given as follows:
for wider applicability of ML methods in process industry. Regression ̂ ̂ ∂( E
̂− E v
̂ ) ∂( F
̂− F v
̂ )
(
̂ ξ ∂Ĥη
)
∂Q ∂Q ∂H
analysis helps in understanding the dependencies between the depen­ Γe +Γ + + =̂
S + σk + (1)
∂t ∂τ ∂ξ ∂η ∂ξ ∂η
dent and independent variables and to identify statistically significant
predictors. Gaussian Processes are commonly applied in regression. where τ is the pseudo-time; J denotes the Jacobian matrix; ξ and η
Regression through gaussian processes is performed by defining denote the curvilinear coordinates; Q
̂ denote the flow vector, ̂
E and ̂
F

Fig. 3. Comparison of equivalent bubble diameter with numerical and experimental results. a) 1.008 mm (Kamei and Hirata, 1990), and b) 4.9 mm (Kim and
Park, 2011).

3
V.M. Nagulapati et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 393 (2022) 111794

Fig. 4. Comparative plots for LR, and GPR with experimental and simulation results for predicting a) 1.008 mm, and b) 4.9 mm condensing bubble diameters.

( ) ( )
Table 1 ̃
k = − ∇.
∇α
n= −
= − ∇.̂
∂̂n x ∂̂n y
+ (7)
RMSE and MAPE values for the validation plots of LR and GPR models. |∇α| ∂y ∂y
Diameter Model 1.008 mm 4.9 mm where ̂
n is the unit normal vector to the interface:
RMSE MAPE RMSE MAPE
∇αL
LR 0.000489 3.48% 0.026869 1.72%
n=
̂ (8)
|∇αL |
GPR 0.007125 12.31% 0.012908 1.34%
The interface advection equation for the vapor phase is.
( )
v v ∂αv ∂αv ∂αv αv 1 − αv
denote the flux terms; ̂
E and ̂ F denote the viscous terms; and ̂
S denotes +U +V = − + ṁ (9)
the source term: ∂t ∂ξ ∂η ρL ρv
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ The surface tension term is given as.
p YL ρV YL ρU
⎜u⎟ ⎜ ρuV + ηx p ⎟ ⎜ ρuU + ξx p ⎟ ( )
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ∂̂n x ∂̂n x ∂̂n y ∂̂n y
̂ = 1 ⎜ v ⎟F ̂ 1⎜ ⎟̂ 1 ⎜ ⎟ (2) Pσ = σ̃
k = − σ ξx + ηx + ξy + ηy (10)
Q
J⎜ ⎟ = J ⎜ ρvV + ηy p ⎟ E = J ⎜ ρvU + ξy p ⎟, ∂ξ ∂η ∂ξ ∂η
⎝T⎠ ⎝ ρht V ⎠ ⎝ ρht U ⎠
Yv Yv ρV Yv ρU
where the phase interface equation is given as.
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
0 0 ξx ∂α∂ξv + ηx ∂α v

(11)
∂η
⎜ ξx τxx + ξy τxy ⎟ ⎜ ηx τxx + ηy τxy ⎟ η x = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̂ ( ) ( )
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
̂ = 1 ⎜ ξx τyx + ξy τyy ⎟ F 1⎜
v v 2 2
E ̂
⎟ = J ⎜ ηx τyx + ηy τyy ⎟
⎟ (3) ξx ∂α∂ξv + ηx ∂α v
+ ξy ∂α∂ξv + ηy ∂α v
J⎜⎝ ξx bx + ξy by ⎠ ⎝ η bx + η by ⎠
∂η ∂η
x y
0 0
ξy ∂α∂ξv + ηy ∂α∂ηv
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ η y = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̂ ( ) ( ) (12)
0 0 2 2
⎜ ξx αv ⎟ ⎜ ηx αv ⎟ ξx ∂α∂ξv + ηx ∂α∂ηv + ξy ∂α∂ξv + ηy ∂α∂ηv
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
̂ ξ = 1 ⎜ ξy αv ⎟ H
H ̂ η = 1 ⎜ ηy αv ⎟ ̂
J⎝⎜ ⎟ J⎜ ⎟S The details of the numerical implementation of the dual-time pre­
0 ⎠ ⎝ 0 ⎠
0 0 conditioned system are found in the studies of Ha and Park (Ha et al.,
⎛ ⎞ 2017) and Ha et al. (Ha and Park, 2016). The discretization form of Eq.
ṁ (− YL ρv/y )/
⎜ ρgx − ( ρuv − τxy)/ y ⎟ (1) is given as.
1⎜ ⎟
= ⎜ ⎜ ρgy − ρv2 − τyy y )/ ⎟,
⎟ (4) [ ( ) ]n+1,m
J⎝ ( ̃+ + ∇ξ ΓA
∇ξ ΓA ̃− n+1,m
(13)
⎠ n+1,m
ṁhlv + uτxy + vτyy − ρht v − qy y I + Γ−s 1 +
̂
ΔQ ̂
= − Γ−s 1 R
− ṁ − Yv ρv/y ̃
+∇η ΓB + ∇η ΓB ̃−

where I denote the identity matrix,Γs = Γ/Δτ + 1.5t; Δ and ∇ denote

bxi = uj τxi xj − qxi
the first-order forward and backward differencing respectively; super­
qx = − λ(ξx ∂ξ T + ηx ∂η T) (5)
qy = − λ(ξy ∂ξ T + ηy ∂η T) scripts n + 1, m and m + 1 denotes the physical-time level, actual and
new pseudo-time level, respectively; Δt and Δτ are the physical- and
U = ξx u + ξy vV = ηx u + ηy v (6) pseudo- time steps, respectively. A
̃ ± and B
̃± are the preconditioned flux
Jacobians. R
̂ is the residual given as.
The interfacial tension force was applied as a continuous surface
force (CSF) in this simulation according to Brackbill et al. (Brackbill
et al., 1992). The curvature is defined as.

4
V.M. Nagulapati et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 393 (2022) 111794

Fig. 5. Machine learning predictions for condensing bubble diameter using LR model for a) 1.008 mm b) 3 mm, c) 4 mm, d) 4.9 mm, and e) 6 mm bubble diameters.

5
V.M. Nagulapati et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 393 (2022) 111794

Fig. 6. Interpolation Remaining bubble condensing history using machine learning predicting of various bubble diameter. a) 3 mm, and b) 6 mm.

̂m ̂ n ̂ n− 1 ( )m sets of variables, where the dependent variable or response can be a

̂ m = − Γe Q − 4 Q + Q + E
R ̂ i+1/2 − Ê i− 1/2 + F ̂ j+1/2 − F
̂ j− function of the independent variables or predictor given by.
(14)
1/2
( v 2Δt )m
(19)
v v v m
− Ê ̂ ̂ ̂
i+1/2 − E i− 1/2 + F j+1/2 − F j− 1/2 − ̂S Y = β 0 + β 1 X1 + β 2 X2 + ⋯ + β n Xn

For the time discretization, the physical- and pseudo-time derivatives where Y represents the dependent variable or response, β0 to βn are
were approximated using the second- and first-order backward differ­ equation parameters and X1 to Xn are independent variables. Therefore,
ences, respectively. For the spatial discretization, the inviscid terms the mean of Y is a linear function of X, but the change in Y value is not
were approximated using a MUSCL upwind scheme, while the viscous dependent on the X value. Given the uncorrelated nature of the errors
and surface tension terms were discretized using the second-order cen­ the responses are also uncorrelated.
tral differencing scheme.
The discretization of the interface advection Eq. (9) is given as. 2.2.2. Gaussian process Regression(GPR)
⎡ ( ) ⎤ GPR can be described as a non parametric model based on Bayesian
4α n
− αn− 1
2 U n+1 α*v,i+1/2 − α*v,i− 1/2 ( )
αv 1 − αv n n theory, where a limited number of arbitrary variables following a joint
⎢ ⎥
αn+1 = v Gaussian distribution defined by their mean and covariance (Li et al.,
v
v − Δt⎣ ( ) ⎦− + ṁ
3 3 +V n+1 α*v,j+1/2 − α*v,j− 1/2 ρL ρv
2020; Goebel et al., 2008). Assuming f(x), m(x) and k (x, x’) as real
(15) process, mean function and the co-variance function, respectively, the
mean is given by.
where
m(x) = E[f (x)] (20)
{
αnv,i±1/2,LS
α*v,i±1/2 = If U > 0 (16) and co-variance function is given by.
αnv,i±1/2,RS
k(x, x’ ) = E[(m(x) − f (x) )(m(x’ ) − f (x’ ) )] (21)
The void fraction at the left (LS) and right (RS) of cell boundary were
considered in the same the way as in Ha et al. (Ha et al., 2015). GPR is used to estimate the output f(x), where the input vector is x.
The output function is f(x) GP[m(x), k(x, x’ ) ]. The co-variance function
α n n
= α + 0.25[(1 + χ )rLS φ(1/rLS ) + (1 − χ )φ(rLS ) ]δi− (10) ( )
v,i+1/2,LS v,i 1/2
k xi , xj is the measurement between xi and xj inputs and is given by.
( ) ( ) ( )
αnv,i+1/2,RS = αnv,i − 0.25[(1 + χ )rRS φ(1/rRS ) + (1 − χ )φ(rRS ) ]δi+3/2 (17) k xi , xj = kf xi , xj + kn xi , xj (22)

with where kf and kn are the functions describing the unknown part of the
system and the noise of the system, respectively. The approach of
ϕ(r) = max(0, min(rβ, 1.0), min(r, β) )
gaussian process is the assumption of a simple form of f(x), instead of
rLS =
δi+1/2
, rRS =
δi+1/2
, δi+1/2 = αi+1 − αi (18) going for a parametric function f (x, θ) and then estimating θ.
δi− 1/2 δi+3/2 Squared Exponential (SE) is a covariance function given by.
β = 64, χ = 1/3 ( )
1
(23)
′ ′
κSE (x, x ) = θ2f exp − 2 ‖x − x ‖2
θl
2.2. Machine learning details
The SE kernel maps the correlation between the given points as a
2.2.1. Linear regression function of the difference between their inputs x − x’ while assuming the
In Linear regression (LR) the model tries to build a relationship by function as smooth. This assumption is a harsh condition for batteries
adopting a linear equation to the observed data and the variables. One given the nature of their degradation phenomena. As an alternative, the
set of variables are explanatory, and the other set are dependent vari­ matern covariance is considered which is given by.
ables. The linear equation is the relationship function between the two

6
V.M. Nagulapati et al.
( ′ )v ( )
21− v √̅̅̅̅̅ (x − x ) √̅̅̅̅̅ (x − x′ )
(24)
′
κMa (x − x ) = σ 2 2v Rv 2v
Γ(v) ρ ρ
where the hyper parameter related to smoothness is denoted by v. Larger
v corresponds to smoother function. Commonly given by v = 32 andv = 52.
The log-likelihood function is maximised to optimize the unknown
hyper parameters in the covariance function (Richardson et al., 2019;
Datong, 2012).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Bubble condensation and its data sets
To predict bubble condensation behavior using machine learning
methods, available numerical simulation data were used. The developed
in-house code to were used to simulate the condensing bubble behavior
under various aspects such as single and multiple bubble condensing
behavior, bubble diameter, flow, and physical conditions. Fig. 2 shows
initial and boundary condition of computational domain. Initially the
bubble was injected into subcooled flow fluid from the bottom of the
flow channel. Based on the initial and boundary conditions, the behavior
of the bubble was observed for the studied conditions. The temperature
of the entire domain was considered as the saturation temperature, the
initial bubble diameter was 1 to 6 mm, and the pressure was 0.1 MPa.
Fig. 3 illustrates a suitable value of the condensation constant defines
the amount of the vapor phase converted into the liquid phase at the
interface. The result shows that the bubble life history derived from the
numerical results is highly sensitive to the condensation coefficient, and
the Lee phase transfer model is that the condensation constant is a
function of pressure and temperature. The validation of in-house code-
based simulation against the experimental results. The present numeri­
cal result shows good agreement with the experiment (Kim and Park,
2011; Kamei and Hirata, 1990). During the simulation, pressure, ve­
locity, temperature, and volume fraction were measured for investi­
gating the condensing bubble behavior. This data is used to form a
machine learning prediction dataset to match the diameter of the
condensing bubbles and the condensation history of the remaining
bubbles. For validation of condensing bubble prediction, the experiment
data for 1.008 mm and 4.9 mm size bubble diameter and their corre­
sponding error percentage with the experimental results are 4.87 and
2.18%, respectively (S Paramanantham et al., 2018; Paramanantham
et al., 2020).
We are using bubble diameter ranging between 1 and 6 mm. E.g., the
condensing time for 1.008 mm bubble condensation took until 3.3 mi­
croseconds with corresponding bubble size 0.18 mm. The data were
extracted during the simulation of bubble condensing behavior
amounting to nearly 100 data points with different time intervals.
However, interval between two-time steps is not equal as the extracted
data is based on the iteration steps. The CFL used in the simulation will
be accelerating based on the iteration convergence criteria. So, for the
data extracted with constant iteration steps, time interval would be
different. Numerical simulation data for various bubble diameters of
1.008 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, 4.9 mm and 6 mm is used for training and
validation of the machine learning models. Models trained in this way
are used to predict bubble condensation behavior. The dataset consists
of pressure, velocity, temperature, and void fraction collected at random
time intervals as inputs and with the corresponding bubble diameter
data as the output. The data available for training the model is divided
by a ratio of 70:30, i.e., 70% of the data is used for training machine
learning models, and 30% of the data is used for testing. The data was
split sequentially in the ratio of 70:30 for training: testing, respectively.
Splitting the data sequentially translates to the data from the origin/
formation of bubble to 70% of its condensation life is used for training
and the remaining 30% i.e., till the bubble is completely condensed, is
used for testing.
7
Nuclear Engineering and Design 393 (2022) 111794
3.2. Analysis of Machine learning predictions.
In this work, machine learning based LR, and GPR models are
developed based on CFD simulation data for bubble condensation. The
CFD model is validated based on experimental data as shown in Fig. 1
schematic. LR and GPR models are trained using the CFD generated data
and the thus trained models are used to predict bubble condensation.
Different bubble diameter data were used to train the models. 1.008
mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, 4.9 mm, and 6 mm bubble diameters were considered
for training and prediction and the results compared. Both LR and GPR
models are compared for prediction accuracy with Root Mean Square
Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) as the per­
formance metrics. Fig. 4 shows the validation plots for LR and GPR
plotted against experimental and numerical data for bubble diameter
1.008 mm in Fig. 4 (a) and for bubble diameter 4.9 mm in Fig. 4 (b). The
results show the predictive capabilities of machine learning models.
Both LR and GPR models show good agreement with the experimental
and numerical data. However, it can be seen that the predictions deviate
slightly from the actual values over time. This is assumed to be due to the
fact that the training datasets lack sufficient data from the later stages of
bubble condensation as the data was split sequentially for training:
testing datasets. This leads to an increase in prediction error over time as
the prediction moves further away from the last known training point. In
spite of these shortcomings the models exhibited acceptable level of
prediction accuracy with low RMSE and MAPE values as can be seen in
Table 1. From the RMSE and MAPE values in Table 1 it can be assumed
that the LR model exhibits better prediction accuracy compared to GPR
model. Given the superior performance of LR model, further predictions
of bubble condensation behavior with various bubble diameters are
performed with LR based machine learning model. Fig. 5 (a)-(e) display
the actual vs prediction plots with LR model for 1.008 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm,
4.9 mm and 6 mm bubble diameter, respectively. Table 1 displays the
corresponding RMSE values. It can be observed that the LR model pre­
dictions are well in agreement with the actual values with low RMSE
values demonstrating the predictive capabilities of the model. Finally,
the well trained LR model is used to predict the remaining bubble
condensation phenomenon for 3 mm and 6 mm bubble diameters as
shown in Fig. 6. The predictions allow us to understand the complete
bubble condensation behaviour over time. It can be examined for 3 mm
bubble diameter prediction in Fig. 6 (a), the prediction ends with a
bubble diameter of 0.4 mm after a time 49 ms. The prediction for 6 mm
bubble diameter in Fig. 6 (b), the prediction reaches 0 mm in diameter
after a time of 90 ms. We have predicted for 3 mm and 6 mm bubble
diameters to show the interpolation and extrapolation abilities of the
machine learning LR model.
4. Conclusion
In this study, the behavior of bubble condensation life history pre­
diction using machine learning techniques from the experiments and
numerical datasets was investigated. The datasets are composed of
bubble condensation history and time. Experimental and numerical
datasets for 1.008 mm and 4.9 mm were used for prediction, of which
30% of the data for testing and 70% of the actual sample data for
training the models. The actual and predicted data were compared with
both experiment and numerical results. A validated machine learning
model was used to predict 3 mm, and 6 mm of subcooled bubble
condensing life-history. The proposed approach gives deep insights into
bubble condensation phenomenon without the need for extensive
experimental and numerical studies. This data-driven machine learning
approach coupled with CFD-derived data is an effective approach for
predicting bubble condensation. Using CFD-derived data increases the
prediction accuracy of the machine learning model by providing extra
data points for the model to train on.
V.M. Nagulapati et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Vijay Mohan Nagulapati: Conceptualization, Methodology, Vali­
dation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing. SalaiSargunan S. Paramanantham: Conceptualiza­
tion, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Aleksey Ni: Writing – review
& editing. Senthil Kumar Raman: Writing – review & editing. Hank­
won Lim: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (NRF-
2019M1A2A2065614) and by the Hydrogen Energy Innovation Tech­
nology Development Program of the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science and
ICT (MSIT)) (NRF-2019M3E6A1064290).
References
Zobeiry, N., Humfeld, K.D., 2021. A physics-informed machine learning approach for
solving heat transfer equation in advanced manufacturing and engineering
applications. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 101, 104232.
Shang, Z., 2005. Application of artificial intelligence CFD based on neural network in
vapor–water two-phase flow. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 18 (6), 663–671.
Chew, J.W., Cocco, R.A., 2020. Application of machine learning methods to understand
and predict circulating fluidized bed riser flow characteristics. Chem. Eng. Sci. 217,
115503.
Upadhyay, M., Nagulapati, V.M., Lim, H., 2022. Hybrid CFD-neural networks technique
to predict circulating fluidized bed reactor riser hydrodynamics. J. Cleaner Prod.
337, 130490.
Zhu, X., Wang, X., Ok, Y.S., 2019. The application of machine learning methods for
prediction of metal sorption onto biochars. J. Hazard. Mater. 378, 120727.
Nagulapati, V.M., et al., 2021. A novel combined multi-battery dataset based approach
for enhanced prediction accuracy of data driven prognostic models in capacity
estimation of lithium ion batteries. Energy and AI 5, 100089.
Nagulapati, V.M., et al., 2021. Capacity estimation of batteries: Influence of training
dataset size and diversity on data driven prognostic models. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
216, 108048.
Han, T.e., Jiang, D., Zhao, Q.i., Wang, L., Yin, K., 2018. Comparison of random forest,
artificial neural networks and support vector machine for intelligent diagnosis of
rotating machinery. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 40 (8), 2681–2693.
Tang, J., et al., 2021. A machine-learning based phase change model for simulation of
bubble condensation. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 178, 121620.
Theßeling, C., Grünewald, M., Biessey, P., 2020. Determination of bubble sizes in bubble
column reactors with machine learning regression methods. Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
163, 47–57.
Warrier, G.R., Basu, N., Dhir, V.K., 2002. Interfacial heat transfer during subcooled flow
boiling. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 45 (19), 3947–3959.
Sobes, V., Hiscox, B., Popov, E., Archibald, R., Hauck, C., Betzler, B., Terrani, K., 2021.
AI-based design of a nuclear reactor core. Sci. Rep. 11 (1).
Paramanantham, S.S., Numerical modeling and analysis of multiphase flows for bubble
condensation phenomena, in School of Mechanical Engineering. 2020, Pusan
National University.
Zuber, N., 1960. The dynamics of vapor bubbles in nonuniform temperature fields. Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 2 (1–2), 83–98.
Okhotsimskii, A.D., 1988. The thermal regime of vapour bubble collapse at different
Jacob numbers. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 31 (8), 1569–1576.
Kim, S.-J., Park, G.-C., 2011. Interfacial heat transfer of condensing bubble in subcooled
boiling flow at low pressure. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 54 (13-14), 2962–2974.
Lucasa, D., Prasserb, H.M., 2007. Steam bubble condensation in sub-cooled water in case
of co-current vertical pipe flow. Nucl. Eng. Des. 237 (5), 497–508.
Harada, T., Nagakura, H., Okawa, T., 2010. Dependence of bubble behavior in subcooled
boiling on surface wettability. Nucl. Eng. Des. 240 (12), 3949–3955.
Brucker, G.G., Sparrow, E.M., 1977. Direct contact condensation of steam bubbles in
water at high pressure. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 20 (4), 371–381.
Yang, Q., et al., 2021. Experimental study on the influence of buoyancy on steam bubble
condensation at low steam mass flux. Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 129, 110467.
Nuclear Engineering and Design 393 (2022) 111794
Qiu, B., et al., 2020. Experimental investigation on the interface shape of bubble
condensation for vertical upward steam jet at low mass flux. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
157, 119909.
Paramanantham, S., Ha, C.-T., Park, W.-G., 2018. Numerical investigation of single and
multiple bubble condensing behaviors in subcooled flow boiling based on
homogeneous mixture model. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 136, 220–233.
Tian, W., Ishiwatari, Y., Ikejiri, S., Yamakawa, M., Oka, Y., 2010. Numerical computation
of thermally controlled steam bubble condensation using Moving Particle Semi-
implicit (MPS) method. Ann. Nucl. Energy 37 (1), 5–15.
Chen, R., Tian, W., Su, G.H., Qiu, S., Ishiwatari, Y., Oka, Y., 2010. Numerical
investigation on bubble dynamics during flow boiling using moving particle semi-
implicit method. Nucl. Eng. Des. 240 (11), 3830–3840.
Chen, R.H., Tian, W.X., Su, G.H., Qiu, S.Z., Ishiwatari, Y., Oka, Y., 2011. Numerical
investigation on coalescence of bubble pairs rising in a stagnant liquid. Chem. Eng.
Sci. 66 (21), 5055–5063.
Zuo, J., Tian, W., Chen, R., Qiu, S., Su, G., 2013. Two-dimensional numerical simulation
of single bubble rising behavior in liquid metal using moving particle semi-implicit
method. Prog. Nucl. Energy 64, 31–40.
Bahreini, M., Ramiar, A., Ranjbar, A.A., 2015. Numerical simulation of bubble behavior
in subcooled flow boiling under velocity and temperature gradient. Nucl. Eng. Des.
293 (1), 238–248.
Zhenyu, L., Bengt, S., Huiying, W., 2015. Numerical modeling of multiple bubbles
condensation in subcooled flow boiling. J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl. 7 (3).
Xiaohang, Q., Shripad, T.R., Maocheng, T., 2017. Numerical simulation of bubble
formation and condensation of steam air mixture injected in subcooled pool. Nucl.
Eng. Des. 320, 123–132.
Paramanantham, S.S., Phan, T.-H., Park, W.-G., 2020. Numerical analysis of bubble
condensation behavior under high-pressure flow conditions. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.,
Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 234 (18), 3725–3741.
Paramanantham, S.S., Kim, D.-H., Park, W.-G., 2020. Numerical study of bubble behavior
under gradient flows during subcooled flow boiling in vertical flow channel.
Symmetry 12 (4), 611.
Liu, H., et al., 2020. An assessment and analysis of phase change models for the
simulation of vapor bubble condensation. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 157, 119924.
Bahreini, M., et al., 2021. Numerical study on multiple bubbles condensation in
subcooled boiling flow based on CLSVOF method. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 170, 107121.
Ge, Z., Song, Z., Ding, S.X., Huang, B., 2017. Data mining and analytics in the process
industry: The role of machine learning. IEEE Access 5, 20590–20616.
Yan, Y., et al., 2022. Machine learning and in-silico screening of metal–organic
frameworks for O2/N2 dynamic adsorption and separation. Chem. Eng. J. 427,
131604.
Babanezhad, M., Pishnamazi, M., Marjani, A., Shirazian, S., 2020. Bubbly flow prediction
with randomized neural cells artificial learning and fuzzy systems based on k–ε
turbulence and Eulerian model data set. Sci. Rep. 10 (1).
Brunton, S.L., Noack, B.R., Koumoutsakos, P., 2020. Machine learning for fluid
mechanics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 52 (1), 477–508.
Mesgarpour, M., Abad, J.M.N., Alizadeh, R., Wongwises, S., Doranehgard, M.H.,
Jowkar, S., Karimi, N., 2022. Predicting the effects of environmental parameters on
the spatio-temporal distribution of the droplets carrying coronavirus in public
transport- A machine learning approach. Chem. Eng. J. 430, 132761.
Kunz, M.R., et al., 2021. Data driven reaction mechanism estimation via transient
kinetics and machine learning. Chem. Eng. J. 420, 129610.
Byun, M., et al., 2021. Machine learning based predictive model for methanol steam
reforming with technical, environmental, and economic perspectives. Chem. Eng. J.
426, 131639.
Ha, C.T., Park, W.G., 2016. Evaluation of a new scaling term in preconditioning schemes
for computations of compressible cavitating and ventilated flows. Ocean Eng. 126,
432–466.
Ha, C.-T., Kim, D.-H., Park, W.-G., Jung, C.-M., 2017. A compressive interface-capturing
scheme for computation of compressible multi-fluid flows. Comput. Fluids 152,
164–181.
Hashemi, M.R., Ryzhakov, P.B., Rossi, R., 2020. An enriched finite element/level-set
method for simulating two-phase incompressible fluid flows with surface tension.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 370, 113277.
Brackbill, J.U., Kothe, D.B., Zemach, C., 1992. A continuum method for modeling surface
tension. J. Comput. Phys. 100 (2), 335–354.
Ha, C.T., Park, W.G., Jung, C.M., 2015. Numerical simulations of compressible flows
using multi-fluid models. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 74 (Supplement C), 5–18.
Li, X., Yuan, C., Li, X., Wang, Z., 2020. State of health estimation for Li-Ion battery using
incremental capacity analysis and Gaussian process regression. Energy 190, 116467.
Goebel, K., Saha, B., Saxena, A., A comparison of three data-driven techniques for
prognostics. in 62nd meeting of the society for machinery failure prevention
technology (mfpt). 2008.
Richardson, R.R., Osborne, M.A., Howey, D.A., 2019. Battery health prediction under
generalized conditions using a Gaussian process transition model. J. Storage Mater.
23, 320–328.
Datong, L., et al., 2012. Data-driven prognostics for lithium-ion battery based on
Gaussian Process Regression. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 2012 Prognostics and
System Health Management Conference (PHM-2012 Beijing), pp. 1–5.
Kamei, S., Hirata, M., 1990. Condensing phenomena of a single vapor bubble into
subcooled water. Exp. Heat Transfer 3 (2), 173–182.