0
Research Papers: Nuclear Power

Study of Interfacial Friction Force for Bubble Flows in a 2×1 Rod Channel Simplifying BWR

[+] Author and Article Information
Akimaro Kawahara, Michio Sadatomi, Yutaro Nakamoto, Takatoshi Masuda

Department of Mechanical System Engineering, Graduate School of Science and Technology Kumamoto University, Kurokami 2-39-1, Kumamoto City 860-8555, Japan

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 133(5), 052905 (Dec 13, 2010) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002404 History: Received July 01, 2010; Revised July 01, 2010; Published December 13, 2010; Online December 13, 2010

Most of the recent subchannel analysis codes are based on a multifluid model, and an accurate evaluation of the constitutive equations in the model is essential. In order to get an accurate interfacial friction force in two-phase bubble flows, experimental data on drag coefficient and interfacial area concentration have been obtained for air-water flows in a 2×1 rod channel simplifying a boiling water nuclear reactor fuel rod bundle. In order to know the effects of liquid properties on the data, the temperature of the test water was changed from 18°C to 50°C. The data are compared with the existing correlations reported in literatures. As a result, the semitheoretical correlation of Hibiki and Ishii (2001, “Interfacial Area Concentration in Steady Fully-Developed Bubbly Flow,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 44, pp. 3443–3461) was found to give the best prediction against the present interfacial area concentration data. The correlation of Delhaye and Bricard (1994, “Interfacial Area in Bubbly Flow: Experimental Data and Correlations,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 151, pp. 65–77) also gave a reasonably good prediction if their correlation was modified by incorporating liquid property effects. As for the drag coefficient, no correlation exists, which can predict the present data well. Therefore, we developed a new correlation, including three dimensionless numbers, i.e., bubble capillary number, Morton number, and Eötvös number. The correlation predicted the data of Liu (2008, “Drag Coefficient in One-Dimensional Two-Group Two-Fluid Model,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 29, pp. 1402–1410) as well as the present data well.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Cross section of the test channel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Void fraction data plotted against gas volume flow rate fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Photo of bubble flow at jG=0.1 m/s and jL=1.5 m/s under different water temperature conditions: (a) 24°C, (b) 40°C, and (c) 50°C

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Sauter mean diameter of bubbles

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Interfacial area concentration data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Two-phase total pressure drop data for the present 2×1 rod channel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Interfacial friction force data for the present 2×1 rods channel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Drag coefficient data plotted against bubble Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of the interfacial area concentration between experiment and calculation by the correlation of Hibiki and Ishii

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of the interfacial area concentration between experiment and calculation by the correlation of Delhaye and Bricard

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of the interfacial area concentration between experiment and calculation by the modified correlation of Delhaye and Bricard

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of the drag coefficient between experiment and calculation by the correlation of Ishii and Chawla for distorted bubble regime

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Relation between drag coefficient and bubble capillary number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison of drag coefficient between experiment and calculation by Eq. 24

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Comparison of drag coefficient between experiment and calculation by Eq. 25

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Comparison of the drag coefficient between the experiments and calculations of Liu by Eqs. 24,25

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Relation between Weber number and gas volumetric flux

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Comparison of the interfacial friction force between experiment and calculation by the correlation of Hibiki–Ishii for aI and by Eq. 25 for CD

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Comparison of the interfacial friction force between experiment and calculation by the modified correlation of Delhaye–Bricard for aI and by Eq. 25 for CD

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In