Investigation of Pivotal Models for Subcooled Boiling Based on the Eulerian-Eulerian Framework

Luo Hanwen; Wang Hongbin; Xiong Jinbiao

doi:10.13832/j.jnpe.2024.S2.0070

Volume 45 Issue S2

Jan. 2025

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Nuclear Power Engineering > 2024 > 45(S2): 70-76

Luo Hanwen, Wang Hongbin, Xiong Jinbiao. Investigation of Pivotal Models for Subcooled Boiling Based on the Eulerian-Eulerian Framework[J]. Nuclear Power Engineering, 2024, 45(S2): 70-76. doi: 10.13832/j.jnpe.2024.S2.0070

Citation:

Luo Hanwen, Wang Hongbin, Xiong Jinbiao. Investigation of Pivotal Models for Subcooled Boiling Based on the Eulerian-Eulerian Framework[J]. Nuclear Power Engineering, 2024, 45(S2): 70-76. doi: 10.13832/j.jnpe.2024.S2.0070

Citation:

PDF( 4362 KB)

Investigation of Pivotal Models for Subcooled Boiling Based on the Eulerian-Eulerian Framework

doi: 10.13832/j.jnpe.2024.S2.0070

School of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China

Received Date: 2024-07-23
Rev Recd Date: 2024-10-24
Publish Date: 2025-01-06

Abstract

Abstract

Wall boiling, interphase interaction and bubble coalescence/breakup models involved in the Eulerian-Eulerian two-fluid model framework within Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) are investigated. In the framework, the five-component wall boiling model is employed to account for the on-wall bubble behavior, including nucleation, growth, detachment, sliding and lift-off. The inhomogeneous multi-size group (iMUSIG) model is utilized to consider the bubble size distribution and its effects on interphase interaction. The Prince-Blanch model and Luo-Svendsen model are used to model the bubble coalescence/breakup. The model performance is assessed based on the DEBORA benchmark, which indicates that the models can accurately predict the distribution of void fraction and bubble size under the condition of high subcooling in normal operation of PWR. However, the void fraction in the pipe center in the case of low subcooling and high void fraction cannot be predicted. It is also found that the five-component model may underestimate the evaporation at the heated wall by comparing the calculated bubble velocity and liquid temperature with the measured ones.
- Eulerian-Eulerian framework,
- Wall boiling,
- Interphase interaction,
- Bubble coalescence/breakup

FullText(HTML)

References(15)

References

[1]	JOSHI J B, NAYAK A K. Advances of computational fluid dynamics in nuclear reactor design and safety assessment[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2018: 261-263.
[2]	YUN B J, SPLAWSKI A, LO S, et al. Prediction of a subcooled boiling flow with advanced two-phase flow models[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2012, 253: 351-359. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.08.067
[3]	YANG G, ZHANG W C, BINAMA M, et al. Review on bubble dynamic of subcooled flow boiling-part b: Behavior and models[J]. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 2023, 184: 108026. doi: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2022.108026
[4]	CHUANG T J, HIBIKI T. Interfacial forces used in two-phase flow numerical simulation[J]. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2017, 113: 741-754. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.05.062
[5]	KURUL N, PODOWSKI M Z. Multidimensional effects in forced convection subcooled boiling[C]//International Heat Transfer Conference 9. Jerusalem: Begel House Inc. , 1990.
[6]	WANG H B, XIONG J B, WANG J. Development and assessment of five-component wall boiling heat flux partitioning model[J]. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 2023, 158: 104306. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2022.104306
[7]	LEMMERT M, CHAWLA J M. Influence of flow velocity on surface boiling heat transfer coefficient[M]//HAHNE E, GRIGULL U. Heat Transfer in Boiling. New York: Academic Press, 1977: 237-247.
[8]	KREPPER E, RZEHAK R. CFD for subcooled flow boiling: Simulation of DEBORA experiments[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2011, 241(9): 3851-3866. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.07.003
[9]	RANZ W E, MARSHALL W R JR. Evaporation from drops, part I[J]. Chemical Engineering Progress, 1952, 48(3): 141-146.
[10]	ISHII M, ZUBER N. Drag coefficient and relative velocity in bubbly, droplet or particulate flows[J]. AIChE Journal, 1979, 25(5): 843-855. doi: 10.1002/aic.690250513
[11]	TOMIYAMA A, TAMAI H, ZUN I, et al. Transverse migration of single bubbles in simple shear flows[J]. Chemical Engineering Science, 2002, 57(11): 1849-1858. doi: 10.1016/S0009-2509(02)00085-4
[12]	BURNS A, FRANK T, HAMILL I, et al. The favre averaged drag model for turbulent dispersion in Eulerian multi-phase flows[C]//5th International Conference on Multiphase Flow. Yokohama: ICMF, 2004.
[13]	FRANK T, ZWART P J, SHI J M, et al. Inhomogeneous MUSIG model – a population balance approach for polydispersed bubbly flows[C]//Proceedings of the International Conference “Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005”. Bled: NSS, 2005.
[14]	LUO H A, SVENDSEN H F. Theoretical model for drop and bubble breakup in turbulent dispersions[J]. AIChE Journal, 1996, 42(5): 1225-1233. doi: 10.1002/aic.690420505
[15]	PRINCE M J, BLANCH H W. Bubble coalescence and break-up in air-sparged bubble columns[J]. AIChE Journal, 1990, 36(10): 1485-1499. doi: 10.1002/aic.690361004