Two-Phase Flow Modelling Seminar

Technical University of Catalonia and Heat and Mass Transfer Technological Center, 2006
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 1) Introduction

by
Iztok Tiselj "Joef Stefan Institute, Slovenia

Email: iztok.tiselj@ijs.si
April 2006
Introduction 1
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 2) Basic equations of two-phase flow

by
Iztok Tiselj "Joef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Basic equations of two-phase flow
Two-phase flow modelling, seminar at UPC, 2006 Table of contents

INTRODUCTION 1) Introduction 2) Basic equations of two-phase flows. TWO-FLUID MODELS Lectures 3-6
INTERFACE TRACKING IN 3D TWO-PHASE FLOWS Lectures 7-10 ONE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS OF FAST TRANSIENTS Lectures 11-14
DNS OF THE PASSIVE SCALAR TRANSFER IN THE CHANNEL AND FLUME Lectures 15-18
Basic equations of two-phase flows Contents

- Introduction - Navier-Stokes equations and constitutive (local instant formulation). - Boundary conditions at the interface. - Coalescence, break-up, single-to-two-phase flow transition. - Averaging of the Navier-Stokes equations in two-phase flow. - Recommended reference: M. Ishii, T. Hibiki, Thermo-Fluid Dynamics of Two-Phase Flow, Springer, 2006.
Basic equations of two-phase flows Introduction

Types of two-phase flows: - gas-solid, liquid-solid - not considered in the present seminar. Interface between the phases is well defined, very accurate two-fluid models and Lagrangian models exist. Reference: C. T. Crowe, M. Sommerfeld, Y. Tsuji, Multiphase Flows With Droplets and Particles, CRC Press,1997. - gas-liquid - main topic of the seminar - immiscible liquid-liquid mixture (not a two-phase flow, but is treated with the same approach as a two-phase mixture.)
Basic equations of two-phase flow 4
Basic equations of two-phase flows Introduction, cont.

Two-phase flows according to the structure of the interface: - Separated flows. Examples: horizontally or vertically stratified flows, jets. Modelling often possible with interface tracking methods. - Transitional flows. Examples: Slug and annular flows in the pipes. Modelling problematic... - Dispersed flows. Examples: bubbly, droplet, particle. Modelling with two-fluid models (particles - Lagrangian models)
Navier-Stokes equations
Fluid k, that occupies the observed domain, is described with equations: continuity equation
r k + ( k vk ) = 0 t
k
r vk
density velocity
momentum equation
r r r k vk + (vk vk ) = k F ( pk I + k ) t
r F
volumetric forces pressure
I unit tensor
pk
k viscosity
viscous stress tensor
Navier-Stokes equations, cont.

internal energy equation (also found in enthalpy or total energy form)
r r r r k uk + ( k uk vk ) = qk pk vk + k : vk + Qk t
uk specific internal energy
Qk
r qk
heat flux
volumetric source terms
Constitutive equations
Equation of state:
p k = p k ( k , u k )
or
p k = p k ( k , Tk )
Viscous stress tensor for Newtonian fluids:
r r T 2 r k = k vk + (vk ) k k vk I 3
Heat flux - Fourier's law of heat conduction:
r qk = k k Tk
Boundary conditions at the interface

Local boundary conditions at the interface i. Interface is assumed to be a discontinuity. Parentheses interface.
[[w]] = wk =1 wk =2
denote jump in the quantity w on the
Interfacial mass balance:

r r r [[ k (vk vi ) n ]] = 0 r vi
r n
interface velocity unit vector normal to the interface, direction: from fluid 1 to fluid 2
Boundary conditions at the interface, cont.

Interfacial momentum balance
r r r r r r [[ k uk (vk vi ) n + ( pk I k ) n ]] = n
local curvature of the interface:
= + 2 R1 R2
1 1 1
= i n
1 2
surface tension
Interfacial energy balance (simplified: neglected kinetic energy, neglected work of the surface tension, assumed =const, see Ishii, Hibiki for details):
r r r r r [[ k ek (vk vi ) n + qk n ]] = qi
qi surface energy source term, usually zero (nonzero if chemical reaction runs at the interface)
Boundary conditions at the interface, cont.

Wetting angle model near the contact of the interface and solid surface
r r r n = nwall cos + twall sin
Wetting system 0<<90
r nwall r twall
r n
Non-wetting system 90<<180
11
Navier-Stokes equations and interface jump conditions - problems

In theory, interface reconnection may create surface with singularities (non-smooth surface), immediately after the reconnection. Curvature of the surface is not well-defined in such points. Before: After:
12
Navier-Stokes equations and single-to-two phase flow transition

Unlike in the single-phase flow, Navier-Stokes equations (with all the boundary conditions) are not sufficient to describe arbitrary two-phase flows. Problem that cannot be described with N-S equations is onset of boiling (cavitation) in a single-phase liquid or onset of the condensation in the pure gas phase. Phase transition may start on the impurities in the bulk of the fluid or at the walls. Additional information/models are needed (sometimes on molecular scales) to specify the density of the impurities in the liquid or the structure of the wall where the cavitation starts.
13
Navier-Stokes equations, whole-domain formulation

In some cases, the Navier-Stokes equations can be applied in modelling. Equations are often assumed to be incompressible, heat transfer neglected. The N-S equations and the interface jump conditions can be simplified and extended to the whole computational domain: Continuity equation for the whole domain
r v = 0
Equation for interface tracking (form continuity eq.) Momentum equation

r
r + v = 0 t
r rr r v + (v v ) = F ( p I + ) + ( f s ( r , t )) Dirac delta function t equation of interface

r f s (r , t )
14
Navier-Stokes equations, applicability of local instant formulation

In general: mathematical and numerical difficulties in modelling of twophase flows with the local instant formulation are insurmountable in the near future. - Turbulent fluctuations - even in single-phase flows resolvable only at low Reynolds numbers. - Existence of the multiple deformable moving interfaces. Motion of the interface is an integral part of the solution (except in particulate flows). Problems with break-up and coallescence of the surfaces.
Characteristic length scales of the interface motion can be much larger than the characteristic scales of turbulent flows, example: turbulent flume. Characteristic length scales of the interface motion can be much smaller than the characteristic scales of turbulent flows: example turbulent bubbly flows.
15
Averaging of the Navier-Stokes equations

Why averaging? Microscopic details of turbulent motions and interfacial geometry are seldom relevant for the engineering problems. Averaged equations result in mean values of the two-phase flow motion. Problem: scales eliminated with the averaging influence the mean values. That must be taken into account in the closure relations of the averaged equations.
16
Averaging of the Navier-Stokes equations Most common types of averaging - theory

r Eulerian averaging of function F ( r , t ) :
Temporal (equivalent to Reynolds averaging in turbulent single-phase flow):
1 t
r F ( r , t ) dt
Spatial:
1 V
r F ( r , t ) dV
Ensemble (statistical):
1 N
n =1
r Fn ( r , t )
17
Averaging of the Navier-Stokes equations Most common types of averaging - theory...

r Eulerian averaging of function F ( r , t ) :
Area (cross-sectional) for 1D two-fluid models:
r 1 F ( r , t ) dS S
Other, more "exotic" types of averaging exist (Lagrangian, Boltzmann statistical averaging). See Ishii, Hibiki for discussion. "Phenomenological averging" - not averaging at all, averaged equations built on phenomenological approach.
18
Averaging of the Navier-Stokes equations Types of averaging - practical approach

From practical point of view the type of averaging isn't important. Various types of averaging results in slightly different equations, however, the differences are minor comparing to the typical uncertainty of the closure relations required to close the averaged system of conservation laws. What is important: - averaging smoothes out the turbulent fluctuations, - "transforms" two phases that alternately occupy the observed point into two continuous fields that exist in that point with a given probability.
19
Volume fraction, void fraction...

The function averaging.
k is a new fundamental variable produced by the
k k k
is a local time fraction of the phase k after temporal averaging, is a local volume fraction of the phase k after spatial averaging, is a probability for the presence of the phase k after ensemble averaging, etc...
When the averaged equations are solved, detailed definition of is not important anymore. In this seminar is mainly called k-th k phase volume fraction. k DETAILS OF THE AVERAGING PROCEDURE SKIPPED (see Ishii, Hibiki for details).
Typical averaged equations of two-phase flow 6-Equation Two-Fluid Model

Represents a basis for the safety analyses of the two-phase flows in watercooled nuclear reactors. Allows thermal and mechanical non-equilibrium. Requires several closure relations that are mainly based on empirical approach. Mass balances:
A (1 - ) f t
A g t +
A (1 - ) f v f x
x = A g
= A g
A g v g
21

Momentum balances
vf v2 1 p f + (1 - ) f + (1 - ) CVM = Ci | vr | vr g (vi v f ) + F f , gravity + F f ,wall 2 t x x
(1 - ) f
vg
v2 p 1 g + + CVM = Ci | vr | vr + g (vi v g ) + Fg , gravity + Fg , wall + g t x x 2
Energy balances:
A(1 ) f u f t A g u g t +
A(1 - ) f u f v f x x +p
A(1 - ) v f A * +p = A Qif g h f + v f F f ,wall t x
A g u g v g
A A v g * +p = A Qig + g hg + v g Fg ,wall t x
)
22

Closure relations: Two additional equations of state for each phase k are:
d k = k d p + k d uk . p uk p u
k
Correlations for inter-phase momentum transfer. Correlations for interphase heat and mass transfer. Wall friction correlations. Correlations for wall-to-fluid heat transfer ... others ...
23
Typical averaged equations of two-phase flow

CFX-5.6 homogeneous two-fluid model
Homogeneous two-fluid model in CFX code, contains viscous terms and surface tension force (if the interface can be found): Two continuity eqs.:
r (11) +(11v) = 0 t
r (22 ) + (22v ) = 0 t
One momentum equation: r r rr r rT r v + vv v + (v ) = F12 + ref g p t
))
Surface tension:
r r r F12 = 1212n12 ( f s (r , t ))
24

Two-fluid models of two-phase flow are today's standard for modelling of industrial multiphase flows and will (in my opinion) play an important role in the foreseen future, despite the rapid progress in the field of the more accurate interface tracking methods. Development and improvement of the empirical closure relations for ensemble, volume, time, or cross-section averaged Navier-Stokes equations of two-fluid models will remain an important research field. From the stand point of the industrial applications: there are several types of piping flows in nuclear and chemical engineering, oil or water transport, where one-dimensional two-fluid models still present a sufficiently accurate and efficient option. 2D/3D two-fluid models - can be found in CFD codes (CFX, FLUENT) - in development - to be used with caution.
25
Catalonia,
32.000 km2 7.000.000 25.500$ (2004)
Slovenia
Area: 20.000 km2 Population: 2.000.000 GDP per capita: 21.000$ (2005)
50 km
Introduction 2
SLOVENIA
Introduction
Joef Stefan Institute www.ijs.si

The Joef Stefan Institute is named after the distinguished 19th century physicist Joef Stefan. JSI is the leading Slovene research organisation responsible for a broad spectrum of basic and applied research in the fields of natural sciences and technology. The staff of around 700 specialize in research in physics, chemistry and biochemistry, electronics and information science, nuclear technology, energy utilization and environmental science.
Introduction
Joef Stefan Institute - Nuclear Research

Reactor Engineering Division Thermal-Hydraulics Structural Mechanics Reliability, Industrial Hazard and Risk Nuclear Physics Division Theoretical, experimental and applied reactor physics Dept. of Environmental Sciences Radiochemistry and Radioecology Research Reactor TRIGA Mark-II, pool, 250 kW, 1000MW pulse mode
Introduction 5
Reactor Engineering Division of JSI Thermal-hydraulics ~12 out of 20 researchers
Introduction
Overview of Thermal-hydraulics research at Reactor Engineering Division

Simulations of transients and accidents in nuclear and experimental installations with computer codes RELAP5, CONTAIN, MELCOR:
1999-2000 verification of the new full-scope NPP Krko simulator with RELAP5 Standard experiments PMK, BETHSY (RELAP5), OECD ISP-44 KAEVER (CONTAIN)
Modelling of single and two-phase flows (home-made codes, CFX, Fluent, NEPTUNE CFD packages):
LES and DNS simulations of single phase turbulent heat transfer Characteristic upwind schemes for fast 1D transients in two-phase flow Numerical schemes for 2D, 3D two-phase flows: two(three)-fluid models and interface tracking models
Introduction 7
Two-phase flow modelling, seminar at UPC, 2006 Table of contents, part 1

INTRODUCTION 1) Introduction 2) Basic equations of two-phase flows. TWO-FLUID MODELS 3) 1D two-fluid models - conservation equations 4) 1D two-fluid models - flow regime maps and closure equations 5) Characteristic upwind schemes for two-fluid models 6) Pressure-based solvers for two-fluid models
Introduction

INTERFACE TRACKING IN 3D TWO-PHASE FLOWS 7) 3D two-phase flows - mathematical background 8) Interface tracking models 9) Coupling of two-fluid models and interface tracking methods 10) Simulations of Kelvin-Helmholtz instability ONE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS OF FAST TRANSIENTS 11) WAHA code - mathematical model and numerical scheme 12) WAHA code - simulations 13) Hands on: simulation of two-phase water hammer transient and two-phase critical flow. 14) Fluid-structure interaction in 1D piping systems
Introduction 9

DNS OF THE PASSIVE SCALAR TRANSFER IN THE CHANNEL AND FLUME (This is not a two-phase flow modelling chapter but...) 15) Mathematical model of DNS 16) Pseudo-spectral numerical scheme, general results 17) DNS of passive scalar heat transfer at various thermal boundary conditions, conjugate heat transfer, high Prandtl numbers 18) Hands-on. Running of the DNS code.
Introduction
10
Two-Fluid Models
1D 6-equation equal pressure two-fluid model for inhomogeneous nonequilibrium two-phase flow heart of the codes used for simulations in todays nuclear thermal-hydraulics.
Introduction
11
1D, 6-Equation Two-Fluid Model

Mass balances:
A (1 - ) f t A g t
(1 - ) f
A (1 - ) f v f x x = A g
= A g
A g v g
Momentum balances
vf v2 1 p f + (1 - ) f + (1 - ) CVM = Ci | vr | vr g (vi v f ) + F f , gravity + F f ,wall t 2 x x
vg
Introduction
12
6-Equation Two-Fluid Model

Energy balances:
A(1 ) f u f t A g u g t
A(1 - ) f u f v f x x +p
A(1 - ) v f A * p +p = A Qif g h f + v f F f ,wall t x
A g u g v g
Two additional equations of state for each phase k are:
k
Numerous closure relations... Additional models relevant for nuclear thermal-hydraulics (neutronics...)
Introduction 13
1D simulations of two-phase flow fast transients Simulation of water hammer in piping system
Past 4 years: development of computer code for simulations of water hammer transients in 1D piping networks. (WAHALoads project of 5th EU research program.) Code development performed in cooperation with UCL and CEA. One of the WAHALoads experiments (UMSICHT, Oberhausen):
Total pipeline length: 137 m
TANK
VALVE
Introduction
14
1D simulations of two-phase flow fast transients Simulation of water hammer in piping system
Past 4 years: development of computer code for simulations of water hammer transients in 1D piping networks. (WAHALoads project of 5th EU research program.) Code development performed in cooperation with UCL and CEA. One of the WAHALoads experiments (UMSICHT, Oberhausen):
P09 P03 GS VALVE P06
P18
TANK
P04
P15
Introduction 15
Water hammer simulation of UMSICHT experiment

Pressure near the valve
5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time [sec] 6 7 8 9 10 UMSICHT WAHA RELAP5
P03 - Pressure [MPa]
Introduction
16
Water hammer simulation of UMSICHT experiment

Vapour volume fraction near the valve
GS - Vapor volume fraction
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time [sec] 6 7 8 9 10 FZR WAHA RELAP5
Introduction
17
Fluid dynamics at negative pressures

Under special conditions, i.e., cold and purified liquid, negative pressures could appear briefly near the valve in UMSICHT experiment, due to the delayed cavity growth. Small negative pressures are actually measured in a few cases, but are within the uncertainty of the measurements. Negative pressures were measured in water hammer experiment by Bergant and Simpson (1999, Proc. IAHR congress, Graz) and tube-arrest experiment (designed specially for that purpose by Williams & Williams, 2002, J.Phys. D, 35, 2222-2230) How to model transients with negative pressures?
Introduction
Tube-arrest experiment: Tube half-filled with purified water is accelerated upward and stopped suddenly. Water hammer-like transient follows.
spring
18

Alternative approach to 6-eq. two-fluid model: 7-equation "two-pressure" two-fluid model (Saurel, Abgrall, 1999). Very similar equations like 6-eq. model but with two separate phasic pressures. Additional equation for volume fraction completes the system of equations:
+ vm = ( p g pl ) t x
7-eq. vs. 6-eq. : several advantages, several drawbacks 7-equation model allows simulations of liquid phase at negative pressure, while the pressure of the vapor phase remains positive.
Introduction
19
1D Simulation of tube-arrest experiment
Introduction
20
Two-phase flow modelling: Interface tracking algorithms

Rising bubble in the viscous fluid flattens the circular shape and causes vorticity in and behind the bubble VOF method explicitly tracks the interface between fluids and enables the streamline location
Streamlines around the bubble experiment (left) simulation (right)
Introduction
21
Introduction - Coupling of interface tracking method (VOF) and two-fluid model
Fluid dispersion and stratification during the Rayleigh-Taylor instability (erne, Petelin, Tiselj, 2001, J. Comput.Phys 171, 776)
Introduction 22
Kelvin-Helmholtz instability - Inviscid linear analysis: step velocity and step density profiles assumed
z=H U2 z=0 U1 z=-H
Immiscible fluids
2
fluid 2
1 fluid 1
Velocity and density profiles for linear inviscid U analysis
Results: Critical relative velocity Critical wave number Critical wave length
U 2 > 2
2
1 + 2 g 12
= 1 2
k* = g /
* = 2 / k*
Introduction 23
Tilted tube experiment (Thorpe, 1969)

L=1,83 (0,2) m H=0,03 m 2 = 780 kg/m3
Initial conditions
h2 H h1
2 1
1 = 1000 kg/m3
u2 x z=0 z
Tube tilted for a small angle
g =10 m/s2 = 0,04 N/m 1 = 0,001 Pa s

g
u1
2 = 0,0015 Pa s
S.A. Thorpe, 1969. Experiments on the instability of stratified shear flows: immiscible fluids. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 39. 25-48
Introduction 24
K-H instability - CFX simulation complete tube length simulated
Temporal development of the interface predicted by CFX. K-H instability in experiment is observed in the middle section of the tube after ~1.8 s. Viscosity not neglected, surface tension neglected in particular simulation.
Introduction 25
CFX simulation of Kelvin-Helmholtz instability
Volume fraction of lighter fluid. (computational domain =20cmx3cm, time~2s).

Introduction 26
K-H instability tough case for CFX code

-Simulation of experiment with K-H instability with two immiscible fluids is very tough task for CFX code. - Structured grid was used and quasi-2D simulations performed. (No reasonable results on unstructured grid) -Surface tension terms in CFX destabilize the surface contrary to the actual physics of the surface tension force, which plays a stabilizing role in the K-H instability development. - CFX model without surface tension is more stable than predicted by the linear inviscid analysis and experiment. - Never trust beautiful pictures produced by CFD codes.
Introduction 27
DNS of turbulent heat transfer with isoflux BC

Boundary conditions: Computational domain and boundary conditions.
L3
Free surface
FREE SURFACE
vnormalfreesurface= 0 ,
FLOW
d + ( y = 1) = 0 dy
-h L2=2h
L1
Solid fluid interface

d + ( y = 1) = 0 dy
ISOTHERMAL
and
ISOFLUX
Z h HEATED WALL - CONST. POWER DENSITY Y X
+ ( y = 1) = 0 or
+ ( y = 1) = 0
Outer wall boundary is adiabatic.

28
Introduction
DNS of turbulent heat transfer with isoflux BC
Instantaneous dimensionless temperature field on the heated wall with isoflux BC (i.e. wall of negligible thermal capacity and negligible thickness).
Introduction
29
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 3) 1D two-fluid models conservation equations
by
1D 2-fluid models - consrv eqs

INTRODUCTION Lectures 1-2
TWO-FLUID MODELS 3) 1D two-fluid models - conservation equations 4) 1D two-fluid models - flow regime maps and closure equations 5) Characteristic upwind schemes for two-fluid models 6) Pressure-based solvers for two-fluid models INTERFACE TRACKING IN 3D TWO-PHASE FLOWS Lectures 7-10 ONE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS OF FAST TRANSIENTS Lectures 11-14
1D 2-fluid models - consrv eqs 2
1D two-fluid models - conservation equations Contents

- Introduction - classification of two-fluid models - Homogeneous equilibrium model. - Drift-flux model. - 6-equation two-fluid models. - Hyperbolicity - Two-pressure two-fluid models. - Interfacial area transport equation.
1D two-fluid models - conservation equations Selected references

- M. Ishii, T. Hibiki, Thermo-fluid dynamics of two-phase flows, Springer, 2006. - G.B. Wallis, One-dimensional two-phase flowm McGraw-Hill, 1969 - RELAP5 computer code manuals: http://www.edasolutions.com/RELAP5/manuals/index.htm - Materials of the "Short Courses on Multiphase Flow nad Heat Transfer", annual 1-week seminar at ETH Zurich, (Lead lecturers: S. Banerjee, M.L. Corradini, G. Hetsroni, G.F.Hewitt, G. Tryggvason, G. Yadigaroglu, S. Zaleski)
Introduction - Classification of two-fluid models

General form of the two-fluid model equations:
r A + B = P t x r r r +C = S t x
A1
"Standard" two-fluid models do not contain terms with second order derivatives.
A B r P C
vector of n independent variables n*n matrix of terms with time derivatives n*n matrix of terms with spatial derivatives source term vector - closure relations without derivatives n*n matrix (preferably with n real eigenvalues and n linearly independent eigenvectors)

"Standard" two-fluid model equations:
r r r +C = S t x
do not contain terms with second order derivatives. Viscous stresses and heat conduction are described with constitutive equations that do not contain derivatives. Their inclusion would not improve the accuracy of these models. (Diffusive terms can be found in two-fluid models of CFD codes Their accuracy is questionable, but they certainly have a positive influence on the stability of the numerical schemes.)

Classification according to the number of equations - dimension of the r vector :
3-equation two-fluid models (example: HEM model) 4-equation two-fluid models (example: drift flux model) 5-equation models (example: older version of RELAP5 code) 6-equation models (widely used in nuclear thermal-hydraulic codes: RELAP5, TRAC, CATHARE) 7-equation models (two-pressure models, additional equation for interfacial area concentration) 8+ - equation models (multi-field models, example: different types of bubbles modelled with separate balance equations)
r r r +C = S t x
Homogeneous equilibrium model (3-equation model)

n=3 (HEM model should not be called two-fluid model) conservative variables or basic variables (m - mixture) (Choice of variables is discussed in lessons on numerics) Homogeneous Equilibrium Model (HEM model) assumes thermal equilibrium (both phases always at saturation conditions) and mechanical equilibrium between both phases . Important from the theoretical point of view - represents a limit of higher two-fluid models.
Other possibilities exist for 3-equation two-fluid model:
= ( m , m v m , m um ) r = ( m , v m , pm )
= ( , v g , v f )
inhomogeneous model without heat transfer

8
Homogeneous-equilibrium model
The simplest averaged model of two-phase flow (works in 1D, 2D, 3D). Very strong interaction between both phases assures equal phasic velocities and equal phasic temperatures. Such approximation is seldom acceptable.
Mass balance for mixture:
m m vm + =0 t x
m
vm v p + m vm m + = F f , gravity + F f ,wall t x x
Momentum balance
Energy balance
m um m um vm vm + +p = vm Fm,wall + qwall t x x
Homogeneous-equilibrium model
Equation of state (probably the most complicated part of the HEM model). p m = p m ( m saturation , u m saturation ) Sonic velocity exhibits strong discontinuity between the single-phase and two-phase flow. Complicated calculation from equations of state:
m = m ( m saturation , u m saturation

Closure relations needed for wall friction and wall heat flux. No special model needed for single-to-two-phase flow transition.
Drift flux model (4-equation model)

n=4 (drift flux model - again not called two-fluid model)
= ( m , g , m v m , m um )
(m - mixture, g - gas)
Drift flux model or 4-equation two fluid model: one phase in saturation conditions (usually vapor), other phase not necessarily in saturation. Mixture velocity obtained from the balance equations, relative velocity also available, but not from differential equation but from the empirical correlations. Very popular model in the early days of nuclear thermal-hydraulics. (see Ishii, Hibiki for details). (Other types of 4-equation two-fluid models can be constructed. )
Drift-flux model
Drift flux model takes into account the relative velocity of two phases:
vr = v g v f
The relative velocity depends on the type of the two-phase flow (flow regime) and must be supplied with appropriate correlations). 40-years old model - still useful in engineering applications (Zuber, Findlay, 1965, J. Heat Transfer 87) Mixture mass balance: Gas-phase mass balance
g t + g v g x (1 ) f g vr = g x f
12
m m vm + =0 t x
Drift-flux model
Mixture momentum balance
2 2 m vm m vm (1 ) f g v r + pm = Fg , gravity + Fg ,wall + + f t x x x
Mixture energy (phases in thermal equilibrium):
m um m um vm v + + p m = vm Fm,wall + qwall t x x
Closure relations: correlation for relative velocity vr correlation for inter-phase mass transfer g equation of state wall friction, wall heat flux Fg ,wall qwall conductive heat flux, viscous stress tensor in 2D, 3D versions (not written in balance equations)
5-equation two-fluid models

n=5 a)
= ( g , f , m vm , f u f , g u g )
Thermal non-equilibrium between both phases possible, mechanical equilibrium - homogeneous flow (not very realistic and not used in practise) b)
= ( g , f , g v g , f v f , m um )
One phase in saturation conditions, the other one in non-equilibrium, mechanical non-equilibrium possible. This type of two-fluid model was built into the computer code RELAP5/MOD1. Version of the computer code for nuclear thermal-hydraulics analyses from ~1985.
14

n=6
= ( g , f , g vg , f v f , g ug , f u f )
Both phases can exhibit departure from saturation conditions. Mechanical non-equilibrium possible. Both pressures equal. This type of two-fluid model is built into the nuclear thermal-hydraulics computer codes that are still in use today and RELAP5, TRAC, TRACE (RELAP5 and TRAC merged 2-3 years ago) - all codes made in USA, CATHARE code - France. References: - manuals of the RELAP5 computer code (available online on internet) - D.Bestion, The physical closure laws in the CATHARE code, Nuclear Engineering and Design 124 (3), 1990.
Requires even more closure relations than the drift flux model. Closure relations are mainly based on empirical approach. Thus, more experiments needed.
Mass balances:
A (1 - ) f t
A g t +
A (1 - ) f v f + = A g x
A g v g x = A g
g vapor mass generation

per unit volume
A (x ) pipe cross-section
(streamwise variations allowed)

16
Momentum balances
vf v2 1 p f + (1 - ) f + (1 - ) CVM = Ci | vr | vr g (vi v f ) + F f , gravity + F f ,wall 2 t x x
(1 - ) f
vg
CVM
Virtual mass term, contains derivatives! Interface friction coefficient Interface velocity
Ci vi
17
Energy balances: A(1 ) f u f A(1 - ) f u f v f

t + x
A(1 - ) v f A * +p = A Qif g h f + v f F f ,wall t x
A g u g t
A g u g v g x
+p
Qig Qif
* hg h* f
gas-interface and liquid-interface heat fluxes per unit volume specific gas and liquid enthalpies at the interface (usually saturation enthalpies)
18

Closure relations: Two additional equations of state for each phase k are:
k
Correlations for inter-phase momentum transfer.
CVM Ci
vi
Correlations for inter-phase heat and mass transfer. Wall friction correlations. Correlations for wall-to-fluid heat transfer ... others ...
Qig Qif
19
r A + B = P t x
Closure relations: r non-diferential closures - no derivatives - contribute to vector P . differential closure equations - contain temporal and/or spatial derivatives of the variables contribute to matrices, examples: A, B - virtual mass term - in dispersed flows (motion of the bubble/droplet causes motion of the neighbouring mass of the opposite phase ) - interface pressure term - stratified flows in 1D approximation - unsteady wall friction terms (in single-phase 1D flows), ... The same physical phenomena can be sometimes described with differential or non-differential model closure equations with second-order derivatives - not found in 1D two-fluid models. Insufficient accuracy of the two-fluid model and errors of the numerical schemes (mainly first-order accurate) do not justify inclusion of the closure equations with second-order derivatives.
r A + B = P t x
Closure equations with first order derivatives influence the matrices and A, B and mathematical character of the equations. Standard 6-equation two-fluid model is non-hyperbolic (ill-posed, i.e. has "slightly" complex 1 eigenvalues of the matrix C = A B ). Differential terms (virtual mass, interface pressure) may be used to improve hyperbolicity (interface pressure term added into CATHARE code two-fluid model without physical background, with purpose to remove non-hyperbolicity). Even a small term with second-order derivatives removes ill-posedness of the two-fluid equations. In practice such diffusion terms are not explicitly added, but come in the form of the numerical diffusion of the first-order accurate schemes.
21

n=7
= ( g , f , g v g , f v f , g u g , f u f ,7 th variable )
Possibilities for 7th variable: - vapor volume fraction model assumes phasic pressure nonequilibrium (two-pressure two-fluid model). - transport equation for interfacial area concentration - interfacial area concentration is a basis for all the closure laws describing inter-phase heat, mass and momentum transfer (Ishii, Hibiki). - concentration of non-condensable gas (RELAP5) - ....
22
7-equation two-fluid model Two-pressure two-fluid model

Alternative approach to 6-eq. two-fluid model: 7-equation "two-pressure" two-fluid model (Saurel, Abgrall, J. Comput. Physics 150 (2), 1999). Very similar equations like 6-eq. model but with two separate phasic pressures. Additional equation for volume fraction completes the system of equations:
+ vm = ( p g pl ) t x
New terms in total energy equations.
(1 ) f E f t
(1 - ) v f ( f E f + p f ) x
+ pi vi
(1 - ) = pi ( p g pl ) + Qif g h* + v f F f ,wall f x
g E g v g ( g g E g + pg) * + + pi vi = pi ( p g pl ) + Qig + g hg + v g Fg,wall t x x
23
7-equation two-fluid model Two-pressure two-fluid model

Advantages of the 7-eq. model comparing to standard 6-eq. model: - No problems with hyperbolicity (no need for virtual mass or empirical interfacial pressure term) - Much simpler eigenstructure of the equations (simple analytical expressions for eigenvalues and eigenvectors) - Less problems with numerics (allows calculations of extremely large pressure and volume fraction gradients without oscillations) - The "two-pressure" model can be used as a single pressure model if instantaneous pressure relaxation is assumed ( = ). Problems: - Unknown relaxation time for the pressure non-equilibrium. - Pressure relaxation term is very stiff (very short relaxation time).
8+ -equations two-fluid models

n=8 and more
- multi-field models (see lecture notes of S. Banerjee at Modelling and Computation of Multiphase Flows, ETH Zurich, annual seminars) The same phase, for example liquid in annular flow, is modelled with a separate conservation equation for the liquid film at the wall and a separate equation for the droplets in the vapor code of the flow. - multi-group models: for bubbly flows: bubble size spectra divided into various classes. Each class of bubbles treated with a separate balance equation (see publications by U. Rohde, Forschungszentrum Rossendorf and CFX5 code manual.)
25
Interfacial area transport equation

- Interfacial area ai is the most important parameter that governs the inter-phase heat, mass and momentum exchange in two-phase flows. - Like all other variables - ai is flow regime dependent - it can actually serves as a quantity describing the flow regime. - Advantage of the transport equation for ai
ai a + v i = SOURCES + SINKS t x
Advantage of additional equation - more accurate closure relations in transients that change the flow regimes. Advantage of the transport equation over the "standard" (non-differential) closures for ai is more continuous transition between the correlations of different flow regimes. (reference: Ishii, Hibiki)
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 4) 1D two-fluid models flow regime maps and closure equations
by
1D 2-fluid models - closures

INTRODUCTION Lectures 1-2
TWO-FLUID MODELS 3) 1D two-fluid models - conservation equations 4) 1D two-fluid models - flow regime maps and closure equations 5) Characteristic upwind schemes for two-fluid models 6) Pressure-based solvers for two-fluid models INTERFACE TRACKING IN 3D TWO-PHASE FLOWS Lectures 7-10 ONE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS OF FAST TRANSIENTS Lectures 11-14
1D 2-fluid models - closures 2
1D two-fluid models - flow regime maps and closure eqautions - Contents

- Flow regime maps - vertical flow regimes - horizontal flow regimes - correlations for flow regime transitions - Non-differential closure equations - inter-phase friction - inter-phase heat and mass transfer - wall friction - wall-fluid heat transfer - Differential closure equations - virtual mass - interface pressure - unsteady wall friction
1D two-fluid models - flow regime maps and closure equtions - Reference

- RELAP5 manual - a complete set of 1D flow regimes and closure laws applied in one of the leading codes for analyses in nuclear thermal-hydraulics.
Flow regime maps

Closure laws of the 1D two-fluid models depend on the flow regime of the two-phase flow. Example of flow regimes in vertical upward flow (Photo from Mayinger, Stromung und Warmeubergang in Gas-FlussigkeitsGemischen, Springer-Verlag, 1982): Flow regimes from left to right: - 2*Bubbly flow - Slug or plug flow - Annular - Annular-whisp
Flow regime maps

Flow regime is an integral "quantity", which is based on geometry of the flow. Inter-phase heat, mass and momentum transfer and wall-to-fluid transfer strongly depend on the flow regime. Closure laws are developed separately for each flow regime. Thus - the first step in development of the closure laws for 1D twofluid models is to draw an accurate flow regime map, which determines borders between different flow regimes. Flow regime maps - not directly applicable in 2D, 3D two-phase flow modelling: local closure laws in 2D, 3D cannot base on "integral quantity"...
Example of horizontal flow regime map

Flow regime map for horizontal flow. From Mandhane et al. 1974, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1.
j g = v g
jl = (1 )vl
j f = jl
Horizontal flow regime map in RELAP5 code (drawing from RELAP5/mod3.3 manual)
Example of vertical flow regime map

Flow regime map for cocurrent vertical upward flow. From Hewit, Roberts. 1969.
j g = v g
jl = (1 )vl
j f = jl
Vertical flow regime map in RELAP5 code (drawing from RELAP5/mod3.3 manual)
10
Correlations for flow regime transitions

Various flow regime maps exist. They are based on a wide range of experiments but are are limited to the measurements and experimental conditions (type of fluid, pressure, temperature, pipe diameter, pipe inclination...). Flow regime maps in the computer codes must operate in much wider range of parameters. Flow regime maps are believed (I. Tiselj) to be the major source of uncertainty in the computer codes based on two-fluid models. Typical simulation of the transient in the nuclear power plant coolant loop; how much time is code using proper flow regime correlations in each particular volume of the system filled with two-phase flow? ???
11
Differential and non-differential closure laws

Non-diferential closures - no derivatives - Derived from steady-state experiments. - Easier to develop from the experimental data. - Validity in transient conditions questionable. Differential closure equations - contain temporal and/or spatial derivatives of the variables. - Can take into account history or spatial distribution of the variables. - Difficult to develop (experiments in transient conditions needed). Can be obtained with theoretical approach. - Influence the mathematical character of the equations and the speed of sound in the two-phase flow.
12
Inter-phase friction friction

Non-differential closure equations Physical background - stress terms due to the relative motion of both phases: Liquid and gas phase momentum equations:
Differential terms= Ci | vr | vr g ( vi v f ) + F f , gravity + F f ,wall

Differenti al terms = Ci | v r | v r + g ( vi v g ) + Fg , gravity + Fg ,wall
Examples of Ci : - Bubbly flow (RELAP5). Assumptions: all bubbles of the same size, bubble diameter=half of the max. bubble stable at the local relative velocity v r = v g v f . - Horizontally stratified flow (RELAP5). Assumption: interface is a flat plate. Standard laws for friction near the flat wall are applied.
Example - bubbly flow inter-phase friction (RELAP5):

Drag coefficient of the bubble:
1 Ci = max g CD agf , 0.1 8
C D = min 24(1 + 0.1Re 0.75 ) / Re bubble , 0.5 bubble

interfacial area concentration: Reynolds number in is defined The product of the critical Weber number and surface tension is: Modified square of the relative velocity is defined as: Average bubble diameter is:
agf = 3.6 bub / d0

Re = (We ) (1 )
f v2 fg
(We ) = max(5 , 10 10 )
2 (We ) vr , v = max 1/ 3 f min( D , 0.005 bub )
2 fg
d0 =
(We )
f v2 fg
14
Example - stratified flow friction (WAHA code):

Force of f on g = - Force of g on f:
F f = Fg = C i v
2 r
1 1 f f f (v f v i ) 2 = f g g (v g v i ) 2 8 8
Friction factors near the flat wall
f f = (0.79 ln(Re f ) 1.64) 2

1000 , v f v i A f f Re f = max f
f g = (0.79 ln(Re g ) 1.64) 2

1000 , v g v i Ag g Re g = max g
Inter-phase friction coefficient:

( v g vi ) 2 1 a Ci = g f g 2 gf 8 (v g v f ) ( v f vi ) 2 1 a ) (or Ci = f f f 2 gf 8 (v g v f )
Approximate interfacial area concentration in 2 min( , (1 )) a gf = the circular pipe A

Iterative procedure starts with initial guess vi = 0.5(v f + v g )

15
Inter-phase heat and mass transfer

Non-differential closure equations Physical background:
A (1 - ) f t + A (1 - ) f v f + A g v g x x = A g
A g t
g vapor mass generation

per unit volume
= A g
Differential terms= A Qif g h* + v f F f ,wall f

* + g hg + v g Fg ,wall ig
( Differential terms = A(Q
) )
Qig Qif
* hg h* f
gas-interface and liquid-interface heat fluxes per unit volume specific gas and liquid enthalpies at the interface (usually saturation enthalpies)
Inter-phase heat and mass transfer

The vapor generation rate is calculated from known heat fluxes as:
g = Qif + Qig h h
* g * f
h* = h f f
* , hg = hg saturation
* , hg = hg
if
if
g > 0
g < 0
h* = h f saturation f
h = u + p/
The liquid-to-interface and gas-to-interface volumetric heat fluxes
Interface temperature is assumed to be a saturation temperature at the local pressure. Fluxes , are flow regime dependent TS (interfacial area dependent). Details - elsewhere (RELAP5). Q Q
ig
Qif = H if (TS T f )
Qig = H ig (TS T g )
if
17
Wall friction
Non-differential closure equations Simple model - calculate single phase friction for two-phase mixture and split the friction between both phases:
Differenti al terms= Ci | vr | vr g ( vi v f ) + F f , gravity + F f ,wall

Differenti al terms = Ci | v r | v r + g ( vi v g ) + Fg , gravity + Fg ,wall
Darcy equations modified for the two-phase flow:
F f ,wall = f wf
f v f v f (1 ) f 2D m
Fg ,wall = f wg
g v g v g g 2D m
Colebrook, White correlation (for single phase flow): Laminar flow: 64

fw =
1 fw
Re
2.51 k = 2 log + 0.27 Re f D w
Turbulent flow
Differential correlations to take into account transient effects...

18
Wall-to-fluid heat transfer

Non-differential closures Physical background: wallto-fluid heat transfer important in the flow around the fuel elements of the nuclear power plant.
f - energy eq. differential terms= A Qif g h* + v f F f ,wall + Qwf f

g - energy eq. differential terms =
* A Qig + g hg + v g Fg ,wall + Qwg
Virtual mass term (added mass)

Differential closure equation Physical background: in the dispersed flow acceleration of the bubble (droplet) accelerates also the gas (liquid) around the bubble (droplet) so called added mass effect. This can be taken into account with a new term in momentum equation:
vg
v2 p 1 g + + CVM = non differenti al terms + g t x x 2
Simplified term for the 1D two-fluid models (one of the possibilities):
vg v f vf vg CVM = CVM t + v f x - t - v g x
CVM
1 1 + 2 2 1 a = m (1 ) 3 2 2 (1 )( 2 1) + 2 (1 + g / f ) 2
0.4
> 0.6
20
Virtual mass term

Differential closure equation Problem of the virtual mass term: - Clearly and accurately defined only for spherical particles. Bubbles/droplets are often non-spherical. Moreover, size of the bubbles is not known... - Even less than in the bubbly and droplet flow regimes is known about the virtual mass term in other flow regimes. - Historical reason for inclusion of the VM term: more stable numerics. Virtual mass term can make equations of the 6-equation two-fluid model hyperbolic.
21
Interface pressure term

Differential closure equation Physical background: interface pressure term allows simulations of the horizontally stratified flows with 1D two-fluid model - appears in momentum equations:
g
(1 - ) f
vg
v2 1 p g + g + + Pi = non differenti al terms 2 t x x x

v2 1 p f + (1 - ) f + (1 - ) Pi = non differential terms 2 t x x x
vf
Interface pressure must be:
Pi = (1 )( f g ) gD
pipe diameter
to obtain solutions that behave like solutions of the shallow water equation 1D 2-fluid models - closures
22
Interface pressure term

Differential closure equation Mathematical background: like virtual mass term, interface pressure term can make the two-fluid model hyperbolic. CATHARE code is using interface pressure term in stratified flow: this term is sufficient to make equations hyperbolic in Pi = (1 )( f g ) gD horizontally stratified flows and in all other flow regimes an expression which makes equations hyperbolic (almost hyperbolic): hyperbolicity can be lost 2 g f vr when relative velocity Pi = becomes comparable with f + (1 ) g the speed of sound in the two-phase mixture
Unsteady wall friction

Differential closure equation Physical background: Standard wall friction correlations are developed from the steady-state measurements. Such correlations are insufficient for some of the fast transients with pressure waves in the piping systems. Simplified single-phase momentum equation:
r 4 rv p 1 = + + D v x x 2 Unsteady t fricton equation: wall v v2
s steady state wall friction s D = relaxation time correlation D t More details in lectures on 1D simulations of fast transients.
Closure equations - conclusions

Closure equations describing inter-phase heat, mass and momentum transfer and wall-to-fluid transfer depend on the flow regime. Flow regime is integral "quantity". Application of "integral quantity" on the local scale of partial differential equations is questionable. It "works" in 1D, but, how to transport the flow regime information to 2D, 3D ? Closure relations are the main source of uncertainty in the two-fluid models. Results are especially questionable in simulations of the transients with flow regime transition. Applicability of a specific two-fluid model with a given set of closure equations for the particular transient in the nuclear power plant, must be tested with "integral experiments".
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 5) Characteristic upwind schemes for two-fluid models

by
characteristic-upwind schemes

INTRODUCTION Lectures 1-2 TWO-FLUID MODELS 3) 1D two-fluid models - conservation equations 4) 1D two-fluid models - flow regime maps and closure equations 5) Characteristic upwind schemes for two-fluid models 6) Pressure-based solvers for two-fluid models INTERFACE TRACKING IN 3D TWO-PHASE FLOWS Lectures 7-10 ONE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS OF FAST TRANSIENTS Lectures 11-14
characteristic-upwind schemes 2
Characteristic-upwind schemes for two-fluid models - Contents

- Pressure-based and characteristic upwind schemes. - Introduction to high resolution shock capturing schemes for Euler equations of single-phase compressible flows. - Riemann solvers - second-order accurate solutions - Characteristic-upwind schemes for two-fluid models: - Two-fluid models: conservative or non-conservative form? - Eigenvalues, eigenvectors of the two-fluid model equations. - Integration of the geometric source terms. - Integration of the stiff source terms. - Characteristic-upwind schemes for two-fluid models, yes or no?
Characteristic upwind schemes for two-fluid models - Selected references

Books: C. Hirsch, Numerical computation of internal and external flow, Vol. 1-2, John Wiley & Sons, (1988). J. D. Anderson, Computational Fluid Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York, (1995). R. J. LeVeque, Numerical Methods for Conservation Laws, Lectures in Mathematics, ETH, Zurich, (1992). Papers: R. Saurel, R. Abgrall, A Multiphase Godunov method for compressible multifluid and multiphase flows, J. Comp. Physics 150, 425-467, 1999. I. Tiselj, S. Petelin, Modelling of two-phase flow with second-order accurate scheme, J. Comp. Physics 136 (2) 503-521, 1997. R. B. Pember, Numerical Methods for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws with Stiff Relaxation I. Spurious Solutions", SIAM J. Appl. Math. 53, No. 5, 1293 (1993)
Pressure-based and characteristic upwind schemes

Pressure-based schemes: pressure is a "privileged" variable comparing to density. Suitable for incompressible flows. Characteristic upwind schemes: pressure treated like all other variables (velocity, density, temperature) - suitable for Euler equations of compressible flows. Is two-phase flow compressible or incompressible? Main criteria for separation of compressible and incompressible flows is fluid velocity, which must be smaller that ~30% of the sound velocity in the fluid. - Effective sound velocities in two-phase flows depends on closure equations and can be as low as 10 to 20 m/s (argument for characteristic upwind schemes) - Pressure based schemes are not limited only to incompressible but can usually handle "slightly" compressible flows... (argument for pressurebased schemes)
Pressure-based and characteristic upwind schemes

Characteristic upwind approach vs. pressure-based methods: - Pressure-based methods - longer history - older versions were firstorder accurate in time and space, robust and efficient. Their weak side is numerical dissipation, which tends to smear discontinuities on coarse grids. - New pressure-based schemes are improved also for slightly compressible flows, second-order accurate versions available (CFD codes). - Characteristic upwind scheme can be easily upgraded into secondorder accurate scheme, which means reduced numerical diffusion. - Advantage of characteristic upwind approach: for fast transients with pressure waves. Pressure-based approach might be sufficient for a wide range of transients where the convection terms play a minor role comparing to the source terms.
High resolution shock capturing schemes for Euler equations

Euler equations of single-phase compressible quasi-1D flow of ideal gas: A Av 0 Av + A( v 2 + p ) = p dA Conservative form
AE t Av ( E + p ) x
Non-conservative vectorial form:
r +C = S t x
1 E = e = u + v2 2
dx
Conservative variables are used in vector
= [ A , A v , A e]
Equation of state (ideal gas):
p 1 2 E= + v 1 2
cp cv
7

Jacobian matrix:
0 1 0 (3 )v 1 C = ( 3)v 2 / 2 3 2 ( 1)v / 2 vh h ( 1)v v

Diagonalized:
C = L L
Eigenvalues: v + c
2 p c =
h = e+ p/
= 0 0
0 0 v c 0 v 0
Eigenvectors 1
1 L = v +c v c v 2 h + cv h cv v / 2 1
8

Equation:
r +C =S t x
r A 1 + L L + R =0 x x t r r r 1 1 1 1 A L + L + L R = 0 t x x r r
rewritten:
Modified characteristic variables introduced:
= L + L
r R A
CHARACTERISTIC FORM OF EQUATIONS:
+ =0 t x
High resolution shock capturing schemes for Euler equations - discrete form
Vectorial equations
r +C =S t x
nj - n-1 j
r r
are numerically solved with explicit time integration (n - time, j - space):

n+1 - nj j
r r t x x r ++ n r -- n A j - A j -1 A j+1 - A j + ( R ) j+1/2 =0 + ( R ) j -1/2 x x + C ++
( )
n j -1/2
+ C
( )
n j+1/2
nj+1 - n j
( ) (C )
++ n C j 1 / 2 n j +1 / 2
( = (L
= L
++
1 n L j 1 / 2 n j +1 / 2
L 1
) )
r n r -- n 1 ( R ) j +1 / 2 = ( L F L R ) j +1 / 2 r n r ++ n ++ 1 ( R ) j +1 / 2 = ( L F L R ) j +1 / 2
CFL limit on time step:
t < x / max(v c , v + c )
Matrices
+ + , , F + + , F :
+ k + = k f k+ + k = 1,3 k = k f k k = 1,3
t - 1 f ++ = max 0 , k + k k k | | 2 x k f
-k
t = min 0 , k - k k - 1 | | 2 x k
SECOND-ORDER CORRECTIONS
Flux (slope) limiters: k, j+1-m - k, j -m k, j+1 / 2-m k, j+1/2 = , m= k, j+1/2 = MINMOD | k, j+1/2 | k, j+1 - k, j k, j+1 / 2 k = max(0 , min(1 , k )) r r r 1 1 1 j+1/ 2 = L + L RA A j+1/ 2 Van Leer k = ( k + k ) /( k + 1) Superbee k = 0 1st-order upwind k = max( 0, min( 2 k ,1), min( k ,2)) k = 1 2nd-order Lax-Wendroff
11
Jacobian matrix averaging (Roe's approximate Riemann solver):
C j +1 / 2
0 2 ( 3)vave / 2 = 3 ( 1)vave / 2 vave have

A j j v j + A j +1 j +1 v j +1 A j j + A j +1 j +1
1 (3 )vave
2 have ( 1)vave
0 1 vave
A j j h j + A j +1 j +1 h j +1 A j j + A j +1 j +1
( vave ) j +1 / 2 =
( have ) j +1 / 2 =
( ave ) j +1 / 2 = j j +1
( Aave ) j +1 / 2 =
A j A j +1
12
Jacobian matrix averaging with Roe's approximate Riemann solver guarantees proper propagation velocities of the discontinuities (shock waves) in the solutions. Rankine-Hugoniot conditions are satisfied at the discontinuities of the numerical solution:
( A ) + ( Av ) = 0 ( Av ) + A ( v 2 + p ) = p (dA / dx ) ( AE ) + ( Av ( E + p ) ) = 0
propagation velocity of the shock wave difference between the quantities ahead and behind the shock cross-section derivative in point of the discontinuity
(dA / dx )
(entropy fix procedure - see LeVeque for details - must be added to remove the discontinuities that violate entropy law - rarefaction shock waves.)
13
High resolution shock capturing schemes for Euler equations - solutions (Sod's shock-tube)
p v
length (m)
1- shock wave, 2- rarefaction wave, 3 - contact discontinuity

Sod, JCP 27, 1978
High resolution shock capturing schemes for Euler equations - shock-tube solutions (100 grid points)
velocity (m/s)
upwind 1st-order Lax-Wendroff 2nd-order length (m)
analytical high resolution 2nd-order
(Not Sod's shock tube - Lax Wendroff fails for Sod's case due to the very large discontinuity...) characteristic-upwind schemes
15
High resolution shock capturing schemes for Euler equations - what is applicable for two-fluid models?
Problems of two-fluid models: - Equations are "Euler-like" but not necessarily hyperbolic. - Diagonalization of the Jacobian matrix of 6-equation two-fluid model is a difficult task: - diagonalization can be performed with analytical approximations. - diagonalization can be performed numerically. (Details: Tiselj, Petelin, JCP 136, 1997, WAHA code manual, 2004)
16
Problems of two-fluid models: - Equations cannot be written in conservative form (although they are derived from conservation equations), i.e., Rankine-Hugoniot conditions are unknown. Moreover - shocks in two-phase flow are not discontinuities... (See example of shock wave in bubbly mixture, Kameda, Matsumoto, Phys. Fluids 8 (2), 1996)
experiment
pressure (bar)
analitical solution of hypothetical two-fluid model time (ms)
17
Problems of two-fluid models: Regarding the numerical integration source terms can be divided into three groups: 1) Sources due to the variable cross-section - can be treated with characteristic upwind in the convection part of equations. 2) Source terms describing interphase mass, momentum, and energy transfer, which tend to establish mechanical and thermal equilibrium i.e., RELAXATION source terms. These source terms are STIFF (their time scale can be much shorter than the time scale of the sonic waves). SPECIAL TREATMENT REQUIRED. 3) Other source terms, which represent external forces (gravity, wall friction) and wall heat transfer - not stiff (probably).
Characteristic-upwind schemes for two-fluid models

Example of numerical scheme for two-fluid model based on characteristic upwind methods and operator splitting with explicit time integration. Operator splitting: 1) Convection and non-relaxation source terms - source terms due to the smooth area change, wall friction and volumetric forces are solved in the first sub step with upwind discretisation: r r r A +B = SNON _ RELAXATION , t x 2) Relaxation (inter-phase exchange) source terms:
r r d A = SRELAXATION dt
19
1st substep of operator splitting: convection terms with non-relaxation source terms
Equation solved:
r 1 +C = A S N R . t x
C = L L1
Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of Jacobian matrix are found: Source terms are rewritten:
r RA contains source terms due to the variable pipe cross-section r RF contains wall friction and volumetric forces (no derivatives).
r r r A r 1 + L L + RA + RF = 0 . t x x
This part of the scheme is the same as for the Euler equations of the single-phase compressible flow.
1st substep of operator splitting: basic variables

Basic variables are ~ primitive variables, = ( p, , v f ,vg , u f , ug ) ( f , g replaced with u f , u g ) The preferred set of variables would be conservative variables:
= [(1 - ) f , g ,(1 - ) f v f , g vg , (1 - ) f e f , g eg]

Conservative equations + and -: 1)+ Numerical conservation of mass and energy can be assured with conservative variables. No conservation of momentum: equations of two-fluid model cannot be written in conservative form, due to the pressure gradient terms, virtual mass terms, interfacial pressure terms, and possibly other correlations that contain derivatives... (Conservation of momentum is less important than conservation of mass/energy.)

Conservative variables + and -: 2)- "Non-standard" water property subroutines are required that calculate two-phase properties ( p , , , ) from the conservative f g variables ( ).
(1 - ) f , g , (1 - ) f u f , g u g
3)- Primitive variables are very convenient for evaluation of eigenvalues and eigenvectors. 4)+/-The conservative quantities as components of vector,
= g , (1 ) f , g v g , (1 ) oscillations , (1 ) e f ) are more( sensitive to the numerical f v f , g e g thanthef primitive variables: = ( p, , v f , v g , u f , u g )

Conservative variables + and -: 4) CONTINUED - Specific numerical oscillations are induced near the property discontinuities (Karni, 1994, Abgrall, 1996) when conservative variables are used. + Non-conservation of mass and energy can also cause numerical oscillations near the strong pressure and volume fraction discontinuities. +/- The optimal set of variables might be a mixture of conservative and nonconservative variables:
= ( g , (1 ) f , v f , g e g , (1 ) f e f )

see Tiselj, Petelin, JCP 136, 1997
Influence of the basic variables on the solution of the Toumi's shock tube problem for the 6-equation two-fluid model.
1st substep of operator splitting: basic variables - examples

Influence of the basic variables on the solution of the Toumi's shock tube problem for the 6-equation two-fluid model. Initial vapor volume fraction discontinuity: LEFT=0.25, RIGHT=0.1
1st substep of operator splitting: basic variables - examples

Influence of the basic variables on the solution of the Tiselj's shock tube problem for the 6-equation two-fluid model. Initial vapor volume fraction discontinuity: LEFT=0.9, RIGHT=0.1
1st substep of operator splitting: basic variables - conclusions

Optimal scheme for the convective part of equations remains to be found... Implicit time schemes might be preferred. Problem: transition from single-phase to two-phase flow. 3 equations in single-phase volume, 6 (5,7) equations in two-phase volume. Degeneration of eigenvectors for zero relative velocity in two-fluid models with two velocity fields (a small artificial relative velocity maintained everywhere solves the problem).
27
2nd substep of operator splitting: integration of stiff relaxation source terms

r r d A = S RELAXATION dt
Relaxation source terms: inter-phase heat, mass and momentum exchange terms are stiff, i.e., their characteristic time scales can be much shorter that the time scales of the hyperbolic part of the equations. Integration of the relaxation sources within the operatorsplitting scheme is performed with variable time steps, which depend on the stiffness of the source terms. Upwinding is not used (difficult to use) for calculation of the relaxation source terms.
28

Second equation of the operator splitting scheme
r m+1
rm r rm = + A ( )S ( )tS rm
1
is integrated over a single time step with variable time steps that depend on the stiffness of the relaxations and can be much shorter that the convective time step . The time step for the integration of the source terms is controlled by the relative change of the basic variables. The maximal relative change of the basic variables in one step of the integration is limited to 0.01 to obtain results that are "numerics" independent. Time step is further reduced when it is necessary to prevent the change of relative velocity direction, or to prevent the change of sign of phasic temperature differences. Probably the best solution: implicit integration of relaxation sources.

Relaxation source terms of the WAHA two-fluid model do not affect the properties of the mixture in a given point: mixture density, mixture momentum, and mixture total energy should remain unchanged after the integration of the relaxation source terms. It is in principle possible to choose a set of basic variables:
M = ( m ,vm m ,em m ,vg v f , Tf ,Tg )

that enables simplified integration of the relaxation source terms. Only a system of three differential equations is solved instead of the system of six. It is difficult to calculate the state of the fluid from the variables that are result of such relaxation.
30
Numerical schemes for hyperbolic equation with stiff source terms

- LeVeque and Yee (1990) tested a simple convection equation with a stiff source term and showed that a general stiff source term affects the propagation velocity of the discontinuous solutions and can cause nonphysical numerical oscillations. - Pember's conjecture from (1993): stiff relaxation source terms do not produce spurious solutions, when the solutions of the original hyperbolic model tend to the solution of the equilibrium equations as the stiffness of the relaxation source terms is increased. - Numerical tests with the 6-eq. two-fluid model confirmed the results of Pember: the stiff sources describing inter-phase mass, energy and momentum exchange in two-fluid models do not produce spurious solutions and do not modify the propagation velocity of the discontinuities. - Stiff source terms are integrated with variable time step depending on the stiffness.
Numerical scheme for the convection equation Integration of the source terms
Current test cases for numerics and physics: 1) Shock tube with large pressure and void fraction jumps (test of numerics). 2) Simple water hammer experiments (Simpson, 1989). 3) Two-phase flow in the nozzle. Especially important as a test of closure laws (physics): very accurate steady-state solutions can be easily calculated from steady-state ordinary differential equations for subcritical flows (experiment Abuaf et. al. 1981, Brookhaven Nat. Lab.). Also very though test for numerics.
32
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20
Vhem
Vf
Ci=10 Hif=Hig=10^3
Vg
Propagation velocities of shock and rarefaction waves in two-fluid models
640
Them
Tf
Tg
Ci=10 Hif=Hig=10^3
40
60
80
635 100 630 625 620 615 610 0 20 40 60 80
Shock waves of two fluid model with various interphase momentum (Ci), heat and mass transfer (Hif,Hig)
100
33
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80
Ci=10^3 Hif=Hig=10^6
640 635 100 630 625 620 615 610 0 20 40 60 80
100
34
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80
640 635 100 630 625 620 615 610 0 20 40 60 80
100
35
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80
640 635 100 630 625 620 615 610 0 20 40 60 80
100
36
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80
Ci=10^6 Hif=Hig=10^11
640 635 630 625 620 615 610 0 20 40 60 80
100
Ci=10^6 Hif =Hig=10^11
100
37
Integration of the stiff relaxation source terms

The arbitrary stiff source terms can affect the propagation velocity of the discontinuous solutions and can produce spurious numerical solutions. Results with the two-fluid model confirm the Pember's conjecture from (1993), which states that the stiff relaxation source terms do not produce spurious solutions, when the solutions of the original hyperbolic model (6-equation two-fluid model) tend to the solution of the equilibrium equations (Homogeneous-Equilibrium model) as the stiffness of the relaxation source terms is increased. Stiffness of the neglected wall-to-fluid heat transfer sources cannot be excluded in advance in some extreme conditions in nuclear thermal-hydraulics that would cause a new problem for numerics.
Characteristic upwind schemes for two-fluid models - conclusions

Is it reasonable to develop new codes based on characteristic upwind schemes? New code for simulation of water hammer transients - WAHA - has been developed using characteristic upwind scheme within the WAHALoads project financed by EU's 5th research program. Authors: Jozef Stefan Institute, Slovenia, Universite Catholique de Louvain, Belgium, Comissariat a l'Energie Atomique, Grenoble, France.
39
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 6) Pressure-based solvers for two-fluid models

by
pressure-based schemes

INTRODUCTION Lectures 1-2 TWO-FLUID MODELS 3) 1D two-fluid models - conservation equations 4) 1D two-fluid models - flow regime maps and closure equations 5) Characteristic upwind schemes for two-fluid models 6) Pressure-based solvers for two-fluid models INTERFACE TRACKING IN 3D TWO-PHASE FLOWS Lectures 7-10 ONE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS OF FAST TRANSIENTS Lectures 11-14
pressure-based schemes 2
Pressure-based solvers for two-fluid models Contents

- Introduction - Numerical scheme of RELAP5 - Numerical diffusion, accuracy
Pressure-based solvers for two-fluid models Selected references

Book: Ferziger, Peric, Computational methods for fluid dynamics, Springer, 1997. Internet: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Numerical_methods RELAP5, CFX, Fluent, NEPTUNE manuals
Introduction - pressure-based methods

Pressure equation arises from the requirement that the solution of the momentum equation also satisfies continuity. "Standard" two-fluid model equations:
r r r +C = S t x
Equations are discretised "directly". Often in the conservative form. Such discretisation is often unstable - especially if diffusive terms (second-order derivatives) are absent. (CFX is known to have problems with inviscid flows)

RELAP5 - 30 years old numerical scheme - no second-order terms in RELAP5 two-fluid model. Stability comes from the numerical diffusion of first-order accurate discretisation and artificial viscosity term. Schemes developed for conservation laws in single-phase flow are usually applied also for two-phase flows - especially in 2D, 3D CFD codes. Number of conservation laws not important... Pressure-velocity coupling: - avoid checker-board of pressure-velocity field: - use staggered grid, - Rhie-Chow type of velocity interpolation on coincident grids (used in general-purpouse CFD codes)

Segregated Solver (RELAP5, NEPTUNE, CFX, Fluent - for twophase flows) 1) Solve Momentum equations (u,v,w) 2) Solve pressure correction equation (SIMPLE...) Correct fluxes and velocities 3) Solve transport equations for other scalars Coupled Solver (CFX, Fluent - for single-phase flows) 1) Solve the Momentum equations- Pressure equation system in one go (u,v,w,p) 2) Solve transport equations for other scalars

Overview of the segregated solver (from Fluent manual):

Overview of the coupled solver (from Fluent manual):
RELAP5 numerical scheme (simplified)

RELAP5 continuity and momentum equation for single-phase flow:
v =0 + x t
v v 2 p =0 + + t 2 x x
RELAP5 code discretisation properties: - Staggered grid - velocities calculated at the boundaries of the control volumes. - Implicit for the acoustic terms, explicit for non-acoustic terms (semiimplicit scheme) - Acoustic terms:
v + =0 t x
v p + =0 t x
- Artificial viscosity term added for stability in the momentum equation.


Staggered grid in RELAP5:
mass, energy scalar node control volume p,,f,g,uf,g
vf
vg
j+1
j+1/2
velocity node vf,vg momentum control volume
11

Donor-cell discretisation of the convective terms, density for example:
i +1 / 2 =
i +1 vi +1 / 2 < 0 i vi +1 / 2 > 0
the same for velocity
Difference equations obtained for the positive velocities in the grid points i and i+1/2:
n +1 i
+ t
n i
n n +1 i v i +1 / 2
n vin+1/ 2 i 1 1
=0
1st-order accurate difference

x 2
vin++1/ 2 vin+1 / 2 in ( v 2 ) in+1 ( v 2 ) in ( v 2 ) in+3 / 2 2(v 2 ) in+1 / 2 + ( v 2 ) in1 / 2 1 + 2 t x x 2 artificial viscosity term pin++1 pin +1 1 + =0 x 2nd-order accurate difference
in+1 / 2
12

in +1 in
t
in+1 / 2
in vin++1/ 2 in1vin+1/ 2 1 1
x
=0
x 2
vin++1/ 2 vin+1 / 2 in ( v 2 ) in+1 ( v 2 ) in ( v 2 ) in+3 / 2 2(v 2 ) in+1 / 2 + ( v 2 ) in1 / 2 1 + 2 t x x 2 pin++1 pin +1 1 + =0 x
Two-equations written in each point. Velocity is eliminated and a linear system of N-equations is solved with unknown pressure pn+1. (N number of volumes) After calculation of the pressure field, the velocity field is updated. Other variables - calculated in two steps - mainly due to the stiff interphase exchange source terms. Inter-phase exchange terms are also calculated implicitly, other sources - with explicit integration.
RELAP5 and other codes in nuclear thermalhydraulics

TRAC, CATHARE - even more implicit treatment of equations. CATHARE - fully implicit:
n +1 n
t
r r r n +1 f ( n +1 ) = S ( ) x
Multi-dimensional codes (NEPTUNE, CFX) - fully implicit... More implicit approach means more stability, but not more accuracy (stability is a result of numerical diffusion of the implicit schemes). More implicit approach allows use of longer time steps - however, time step longer than the characteristic time of the physical phenomena means non-accurate simulation of the phenomena.
"Water hammer due to the valve closure" simulation

RELAP5 1 2 F 2 nd -o rd e r
RELAP5 2
Vapor vol. fraction
0.002
Stiff source term integration problematic also in RELAP5 (implicit time integration of source terms) Calculated vapor volume fraction near the valve: RELAP5 1 t=x/c RELAP5 2 t=0.01x/c 2F - WAHA t=x/c adaptive time step for relaxation source terms.
15
0.001
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
tim e (s )
RELAP5 at very small time steps

RELAP5 1st
RELAP5 2nd
2nd-order scheme
Quasi second-order pressure waves are predicted by the RELAP5 when a very small time step is used. The resolution of the steep gradients is improved; however, numerical oscillations appear near the shock wave.
18 16 Pressure (MPa) 14 12 10 8 0 2 4 Length (m) 6 8 10
This is a consequence of the 2nd-order central differencing of the pressure gradient: v n +1 v n p n +1 p n +1
in+1 / 2
i +1 / 2
i +1 / 2
+ ...CONVECTION +
i +1
=0
16
Pressure-based methods - conclusions

Work fairly well, although the various numerical artifacts are less controlled than in the characteristic upwind schemes. Advantages of the characteristic based schemes seem to be insufficient to justify development of the codes based on the characteristic upwind schemes. Characteristic upwind or pressure-based schemes - it is not very important - the main problem of the two-phase flows is not numerics and numerical errors but physics and physical models.
17
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modeling 7) 3D two-phase flows mathematical background

by
7-3D-two-phase-flows

INTRODUCTION TWO-FLUID MODELS Lecture 1-2 Lectures 3-6
INTERFACE TRACKING IN 3D TWO-PHASE FLOWS 7) 3D two-phase flows - mathematical background 8) Interface tracking models 9) Coupling of two-fluid models and VOF method 10) Simulations of Kelvin-Helmholtz instability ONE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS OF FAST TRANSIENTS DNS OF THE PASSIVE SCALAR TRANSFER IN THE CHANNEL AND FLUME
Lectures 11-14 Lectures 15-18

2
3D two-phase flows - mathematical background - Contents

- Introduction, computer codes CFX, Fluent, NEPTUNE (new 3D code for nuclear thermal hydraulics). - 3D two-fluid models in CFX, Fluent, NEPTUNE - 3D closure laws in CFX, Fluent, NEPTUNE - Turbulence in two-fluid model codes.
3D two-phase flows - mathematical background - References
- Ishii, Hibiki (book, 2006) - NEPTUNE, CFX, Fluent manuals
Additional: - Tsai & Yue Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech. 1996.28:249-78 - about freesurface flows in oceanography - Detailed surface modelling (non-zero thickness of the interface...): Anderson, McFadden, Wheeler, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1998. 30:139 65
7-3D-two-phase-flows 4
ECORA - project of 5th research program of EU

ECORA document: Recommendation on use of CFD codes for nuclear reactor safety analyses - Conclusions: "Two-phase CFD is much less mature than single phase CFD. The flows are much more complex and myriads of basic phenomena may take place at various scales. Thus it is clear that the physical modelling will have to be improved over a long time period. Fundamental questions related to the averaging or filtering of equations are not yet as clearly formalised as they are for RANS or LES methods in single phase. This makes that the separation between physics and numerics is not always well defined... ... ECORA strongly recommends further investigations on this topic."
NURESIM - project of 6th research program of EU

The European Platform for NUclear REactor SIMulations, NURESIM is planned to become common European standard software platform for modeling, recording, and recovering computer data for nuclear reactors simulations. Key objectives of NURESIM: (i) integration of advanced physical models in a shared and open software platform; (ii) promoting and incorporating the latest advances in reactor and core physics, thermal-hydraulics, and coupled (multi-) physics modeling; (iii) progress assessment by using deterministic and statistical sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, verification and benchmarking; (iv) training, dissemination, best practice and quality assurance.
NURESIM - project of 6th research program of EU

The specific objectives of NURESIM are to initiate the development of the next-generation of experimentally validated, best-estimate tools for modeling (thermal-hydraulics, core physics, and multi-physics) of the present and future reactors. The improved prediction capabilities, standardization and robustness of the envisaged NURESIM European Platform would address current and future needs of industry, reactor safety organizations, academic, government, and private institutions. Thermal hydraulics - NEPTUNE code.
Computer codes
CFX, Fluent - commercial CFD codes - academic licenses ~1000 EU per CPU - major players on the market of CFD codes. CFX and Fluent used to be competitors, but have recently got the same owner (ANSYS). Future ??? Both codes have a strong two-phase flow modules. Especially useful for particles (bubbly flows).
Neptune - nuclear thermal-hydraulics oriented code - in development. Future dissemination ???
Navier-Stokes equations, whole-domain formulation

Approach available in Fluent with VOF technique - computed surface will always remain sharp (even when it has nothing to do with the actual shape of the surface) Continuity equation for the whole domain
r v = 0
Equation for interface tracking (form continuity eq.) Momentum equation

Dirac delta function
r
r + v = 0 t
r rr r v + (v v ) = F ( p I + ) + ( f s ( r , t )) t r f s (r , t )
equation of interface
3D two-fluid models - homogeneous (equal velocity) model

2 Continuity equations
r (G G ) + G GU = GL t G - Gas User specified mass source
Interphase mass transfer

r ( L L ) + L LU = SML + LG t
L - Liquid Volume conservation

L + G = 1
1 momentum equation
r rr r r U + UU U + (U )T = p + g + S M t = L L + (1 L )G = L L + (1 L )G
( )
))
Density
Viscosity
User specified momentum source

10
Model available in CFX5 and Fluent CFD codes (3,4, or 5 eqs. two-fluid model)
3D two-fluid models - inhomogeneous model (different velocities)

2 Countinity equations
r ( L L ) + LU L = SML + LG t
r ( G G ) + GU G = SMG + GL t
User specified mass source
Inter-phase mass transfer
2 momentum equations
r r r r r r r r r U + U T + U U + S + M L LU L + L LU L U L = Lp + L L L L LG G GL L ML L t r r r r r r r r r U + U T + U U + S + M G GU G + G GU G U G = G p + G G G G GL L LG G MG G t
( (
( (
))
( (
))
Model available in CFX5, Fluent User specified and Neptune CFD codes (4,5,6 momentum source eqs. two-fluid model) 7-3D-two-phase-flows
Interfacial forces acting on phase L due to presence of other phase

11
3D two-fluid models - inter-phase momentum transfer in dispersed flows

Drag Force
r r r M L = CLG U G U L
Similar model found in CFX, Fluent, Neptune
Dimensionless drag force coefficient

CD =
2 r r 2 ; Adroplet = D / 4 1 L U L UG A 2
Mixture model (for droplets)

C LG r r CD = ai LG U G U G 8
LG = L L + G G
Interfacial area per unit volume

ai =
L G
d LG
Mixing length scale - user specified - interfacial area ai is supposed to be a part of solution and not a user defined parameter...
3D two-fluid models - inter-phase momentum transfer in dispersed flows

Dimensionless drag force coefficient for spherical particles (bubbles, droplets) Low Reynolds Re<<1
CD = 24 Re
High Re: Schiller-Naumann drag model
CD =
24 1 + 0.15 Re0.687 Re
Transitional area at medium Reynolds numbers. CFX and Fluent offer drag forces for non-spherical bubbles, but should be switched on by user... (How do one knows that bubbles changed their shape?) CFX, Fluent and Neptune can take into account also the following inter-phase momentum transfer in dispersed flows: lift, virtual mass, turbulent dispersion force. Approach probably useful for particle flows (and allows numerous user defined parameters to fit the experiments...)
3D two-fluid models - inter-phase momentum transfer in stratified flows

Neptune - separate correlations
CFX, Fluent - no correlations
3D two-phase flows- inter-phase momentum transfer in dispersed-to-stratified flows

??? (user defined....)
14
3D two-fluid models energy equations

2 Total Energy equations, 1 Momentum equation
r r p r + G GU hG ,tot G G TG G G U + U G G hG ,tot G t t
( )
T
2 r r U U 3
= =
GL hL ,tot LG hG ,tot + QG + SG
r r p r L L U + U + L LU hL ,tot L LTL L L hL ,tot L t t
( )
2 r r U U 3
LG hG ,tot GL hL,tot + QL + S L
Heat transfer induced by Interphase heat interphase mass transfer transfer 1 r r Total enthalpy htot = hstat + U U 2
External heat source Static enthalpy
)
15
3D two-fluid models energy equations

2 Thermal Energy equations, 2 Momentum equations
r ( L L hL ) + L LU L hL LLTL = LG hG ,tot GL hL,tot + QL + S L t
Heat transfer induced by interphase mass transfer External heat source
r ( G G hG ) + G GU G hG G GTG = GL hL LG hG + QG + SG t
Interphase heat transfer
16
3D two-fluid models inter-phase heat & mass transfer

Interfacial heat transfer Thermal phase change model
& GL = mGL AGL
Interfacial area density Interfacial mass flux

& mGL = qLG + qGL H GS H LS
Heat flux from phase G to L Heat flux from phase L to G
qGL = hL (TSAT TL ) qLG = hG (TSAT TG )
& mGL > 0 H GS = H G , H LS = H L , SAT & mGL < 0 H GS = H G , SAT , H LS = H L
hG , hL Heat transfer coefficients
BASIC MODEL THE SAME AS IN 1D TWO-FLUID MODELS Problem: unknown interfacial area and heat transfer coefficients (flow regime dependent)
3D two-fluid models wall-to-fluid heat transfer

Single phase type of heat transfer assumed in CFX and Fluent. Acceptable if the wall-fluid area known for each phase ... again part of the solution is expected as a user defined parameter...
Neptune: - nucleate boiling correlations (important for nuclear simulations) - flashing flow model (flashing delay possible in Neptune)
18
3D two-phase flows - turbulence

Characteristic length scales of the interface motion can be much larger than the characteristic scales of turbulent flows, example: turbulent flume. Characteristic length scales of the interface motion can be much smaller than the characteristic scales of turbulent flows: example turbulent flow of very small bubbles.
19
3D two-fluid models - turbulence

Turbulence k-, for one phase or both phases
r + t k + Pk (k ) + Uk = t k r Turbulent eddy + t + (C 1 Pk C 2 ) ( ) + U = dissipation t k k = 1.0 = 1.3 C 2 = 1.92 C 1 = 1.44 Turbulent kinetic energy k
( ) )
Turbulence production
r r rT 2 r r Pk = t U U + U U 3t U + k 3
C = 0.09
Effective Viscosity
eff = + t
2 k 3
t = C
k2
Modified pressure
p = p +
Turbulent viscosity
20
3D two-fluid models - turbulence

Turbulence (NEPTUNE) Model of dispersed phase kinetic energy transport and fluid/particle fluctuating movement covariance Model of dispersed phase kinetic stress and fluctuating movement covariance Fluent, CFX: user can apply various turbulence models in every phase that he/she wants...
21
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 8) Interface tracking models

by
8-interface-tracking


2
Multi-dimensional two-fluid models Contents

- Review of the interface tracking methods - Lagrangian (moving-grid) methods - Eulerian (fixed-grid) methods (Marker-And-Cell, Embedded interface methods, VOF, Level set) - Volume-of-Fluid method - Level set method - Simulation of the K-H instability with "conservative level set" method - Dam-break simulation. - Interface sharpening in two-fluid models
8-interface-tracking 3
Interface tracking methods- References 1

Lagrangian methods: - Hyman 1984, Physica D 12:396-407 - Hirt, Amsden, Cook, 1974, J. Comput. Phys. Vol. 14, 227-253. Eulerian: - MAC: Harlow, Welch, 1965, Phys. Fluids 8: 2182-89, - Embedded interface methods: Unverdi, Tryggvason, J. Comput. Phys. 100 (1) 1992) Tryggvason et al., J. Comput. Phys. 169 (2) 2001 - VOF: Hirt and Nichols 1981, J. Comput. Phys. 39:20 1-25, Scardovelli & Zaleski, DNS of free-surface and interfacial flow, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1999. 31:567603. - Level set: Sethian & Smereka, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2003. 35:34172.
Interface tracking methods- References 2

Interface sharpening: ??? Other interesting papers: - Recent review of the methods for free-surface flows: Caboussat, Arch. Comput. Meth. Eng. 12 (2), 2005. Book: Validation of Advanced Computational Methods for Multiphase Flow Lemonnier , Jamet, Lebaigue, Begell House, 2005. (test cases for interface tracking methods)
Lagrangian interface tracking methods

The grid moves with fluid. Suitable for small displacements of the surface. The grid automatically follows free surface. Suitable for Fluid-structure interaction. Remeshing required for large surface distortions. Severe limitation: cannot track surfaces that break apart or intersect.
Eulerian interface tracking methods

Marker methods: - Marker-And-Cell (MAC) - Embedded interface methods All use surface markers, allow very accurate representation of the surface (accurate surface tension calculations). Volume-Of-Fluid (VOF), Level-set: Each fluid is treated with function tracing the amount of each phase in the given point. Similar to the volume fraction of a given phase in two-fluid model All methods need a basic solver for Navier-Stokes equations
Eulerian interface tracking methods Solution of N-S equations

Algorithms for interface reconstruction are built into the basic numerical scheme for solution of Navier-Stokes equations: - Choice of the basic numerical scheme must take into account large gradients in the material properties at the interface. - The most efficient single-phase schemes are not necessarily successful in two-phase flow... Useful schemes: - segregated solvers (Fluent, NEPTUNE, CFX4), pressure correction schemes - coupled solvers - available for two-phase flow in CFX5 (not in CFX4)
Marker and cell (MAC)

One of the first methods for time dependent flow Based on fixed Eulerian grid of control volumes The location of free surface is determined by a set of zero-mass and zero-volume marker particles that move with the fluid and are traced with Lagrangian approach.
Embedded interface methods (Tryggvason)

Fixed Eulerian grid Whole-domain formulation
r rr r v + (v v ) = k F ( pk I + k ) + ( f s ( r , t )) t Interface is being tracked with the surface markers connected into the surface. r
Front-tracking methods - not further discussed in this seminar. Volume-tracking preferred - closer relation with twofluid models...
10
Volume of fluid (VOF)

To compute time evolution of free surface continuity equation for void fraction is solved r ( ) + U = 0 t
( )
Due to the step function nature of void fraction this equation must be solved in a way that retains the step function nature. With ordinary first or second order accurate discretization scheme step function gets smeared due to numerical diffusion A special procedure must be used to assure sharp free surface.
11
Volume of fluid (VOF) Interface reconstruction

Reconstructs surface from volume fraction with geometrical elements.
Position of the interface in the Eulerian grid and void fractions.
0.4 0.07 0.0
1.0
0.95
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.7
Many different reconstruction schemes... all based on geometry
12

Different types of interface reconstruction: - Simple Line Interface Reconstruction with Calculation (SLIC) step function
First-order reconstructions.
13

Different types of interface reconstruction: - Flux Line-Segment for Advection and Interface Reconstruction (FLAIR) - Least-squares Volume-of-Fluid Interface Reconstruction Algorithm (LVIRA)
r n
(i-1,j) (i,j)
y x
Second-order approaches but very complicated in 3D
j,y (i,j-1)
i,x
14
Level-Set
Use of a continuous level-set function , which is positive in the space occupied by the first fluid, negative in the space occupied by the second fluid. r Value of in a point x r is distance from point x to the surface
r r r = min x xI ; xI Interface
=2 =1 = 1 =0
Free surface position is defined with the zero value of level set function (distance function)
= 2
15
Level-Set
Temporal development equation
r + v = 0 t
Heavy side function is used to represent density and viscosity over interface
0, < 0 H ( ) = 1, > 0
To achieve numerical robustness a smeared out Heavy side function is often used
0, 1 1 + sin H ( ) = + 2 2 2 1,
( ),
>
<
Where corresponds to the half of the interface thickness.

Level-Set vs. VOF

Mass conserved in VOF but not in Level-Set (special additional algorithms needed). Level-set - problems with near the steep gradients (bigger than in VOF). 3D - easier implementation of level-set, VOF more problematic.
17
Conservative Level-Set
Olsson & Kreiss, J. Comput. Phys. 210, 2005 After advective step - a different level-set function is defined:
r + u = 0 t
=0.5 on the surface, does not measure distance from the surface but volume fraction. Equation which acts as artificial compression is solved until steady state is reached v v n= + ( (1 )n ) = beginning of the second step. We denote time variable by to stress that this is an artificial time, not equivalent to an actual time t. Artificial compression flux (1-) acts in the regions where 0<<1. Small amount of viscosity is added to smear discontinues.
v n is normal at the interface and is calculated only once at the
Conservative Level-Set - Our implementation

System of Navier-Stokes eq.
r r r r r r p 1 u + (u )u = + u + (u )T + g t
((
))
= 1 + (1 ) 2 = 1 + (1 ) 2
r + u = 0 t
SIMPLE pressure correction procedure to get divergence free velocity field r Solving momentum equation to obtain intermediate velocity u * p 1 r = u * Solving pressure correction equation t Solving momentum equation only with the contribution of pressure r u n+1 part to get Solving continuity equation for volume fraction to obtain n+1
19
Conservative Level-Set Our implementation

Staggered grid to avoid checkerboard distribution of the variables All equations discretized with fluxes to ensure conservation
Gi,j+1/2 i,j+1/2 Fi-1/2,j i-1/2,j i,j i,j-1/2 Gi,j-1/2 i+1/2,j Fi+1/2,j p u v
in, +1 j
= in j ,
Fi n1 / 2, j Fi n1 / 2, j Gin j +1 / 2 Gin j 1 / 2 + + , , x y
Second order discretization with Van Leer limiter (combination of upwind and Lax Wendroff scheme) -> decreased numerical diffusion and dispersion, second order accurate in space and time CGSTAB algorithm to solve pressure correction eq. (5-diagonal matrix in 2D)
20
Conservative L-S - Dam break

see: Validation of Advanced Computational Methods for Multiphase Flow for details of the benchmark Surface tension was neglected due to the scale of the problem Two problems, dam break on dry and wet surface Water-air system
g=9.81 m/s2 H=0.14 m
hl=0.1 m
hr=0.01 m L=1.2 m
21

Mass conservation
1,00E-03 0 1,00E-04 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
mr = (m0 m ) / mo
1,00E-05 mass 1,00E-06
1,00E-07
1,0E-08 1,0E-07 1,0E-06 t

r max residual = u
1,00E-08
22

Dry ground
Grid:512x64, time step=1e-2 s, CPU time=1.5 h @3.0 GHz Pentium 4 Wet ground jet is formed
Grid:1024x128, time step=1e-3 s, CPU time=15 h @3.0 GHz Pentium 4 Most of the CPU time for pressure correction eq.
Conservative Level-Set Conclusion

Very promising method - seems to allow natural transition from whole-field interface tracking mode into the two-fluid model.
24
Interface sharpening in two-fluid models

CFX The implementation of free surface flow involves some special discretisation options to keep the interface sharp. These include: A compressive differencing scheme for the advection of volume fractions in the volume fraction equations. A compressive transient scheme for the volume fraction equations (if the problem is transient). Special treatment of the pressure gradient and gravity terms to ensure that the flow remain well behaved at the interface.
Neptune - interface sharpening supposed to exist - not documented yet (similar mechanism as in CFX).
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 9) Coupling of two-fluid models and VOF method
by
9-VOF+two-fluid

9-VOF+two-fluid

2
9) Coupling of two-fluid models and VOF method - Contents

-VOF method -Two-fluid model -Model Coupling -Simulation of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability References: Cerne, Petelin, Tiselj J. Comp. Phys. 171, 776804 (2001), Coupling of the interface Tracking and the Two-Fluid Models ..... Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 2002; 38:329350 Numerical errors of the VOF...
9-VOF+two-fluid 3
Description of the problem Various two-phase flow regimes

separated flow - model VOF dispersed flow two-fluid model
r u = 0
r r r u + (u )u = t r g p + ( D ),
t r + u = 0
r r r uk k k + k k (uk )uk = t r r r k k g k p Chk ur ur
r k + ( k u k ) = 0 t
( )
k = 1
k
interfacial drag: Chk =Ch1 =Ch2
9-VOF+two-fluid
Description of the problem Flow regime change
9-VOF+two-fluid
VOF method - I
Whole domain formulation of basic equations (no surface tension term):
r u = 0
r r r r u + (u )u = g p + ( D), t
1 , i, j = 0 , 0 < < 1, i, j
fluid 1 fluid 2 both fluids
r + (u ) = 0. t
9-VOF+two-fluid
VOF method II
simulated structures are larger than the grid distance
0.4
0.07
0.0
n
(i-1,j) j,y
1.0
0.95
0.2
(i,j) y x
1.0
1.0
0.7
(i,j-1) i,x
9-VOF+two-fluid
VOF errors - I
reconstruction error
9-VOF+two-fluid
VOF errors - I
reconstruction error - bubble on a coarse grid
h
9-VOF+two-fluid 9
VOF errors - I
reconstruction error
0,6
1 = N
( i , j )V
ACTUALi, j
(t ) RECONSTRUCTEDi, j (t )) (t )
2
0,4
0,2
d bubble diameter h distance between the grid points

x = y
0 0 2 4 6
d/h
10
9-VOF+two-fluid
10
VOF errors - II
Advection error
Initial state: - different bubbles flows together with the surrounding liquid in a constant velocity field Final state: - bubbles with d<2.5h move faster - shapes of the bubbles are changed
9-VOF+two-fluid
11
VOF errors III Numerical dispersion error

Shear flow test -the horizontal velocity changes linearly in vertical direction -a vertical strip of fluid perpendicular to the velocity is stretched to the infinity -(periodic boundary conditions)
9-VOF+two-fluid
12

Numerical Dispersion When the strip width is close to the grid size, the tension of the reconstruction algorithm to keep the fluid chunk as compact as possible results in dispersion. Several fluid chunks with the characteristic size h<d<3h are provided, the fluid chunks are stable despite the shear velocity field.
9-VOF+two-fluid
13

black coloured spot in the prescribed prescribed velocity field - vortex shear flow with the zero velocity in the origin and boundaries and maximum velocity in the middle circle bubble is put on the position of the maximum velocity gradient (point(0.5,0.85)) bubble is deformed into the spiral whirling to infinity
9-VOF+two-fluid
14

Numerical dispersion: left - solution on finer grid, right numerical solution on coarse grid
9-VOF+two-fluid
15
Two-fluid model - I
simulated structures are smaller than the grid distance
fluid 2 fluid 1 0.2 0.3 0.3
0.7
0.6
0.7
fluid 1
fluid 2
0.9
0.8
0.9
9-VOF+two-fluid
16
Two-fluid model - II
r k + (k uk ) = 0 t
=1
r r r r r r uk f k k + k k (uk )uk = k k g k p + Ck (u1 u2 ) + k (k Dk ) t
interfacial drag
r r 1 C1 = C2 = cd c ai v1 v2 8
C1 = C2 = cd 12
9-VOF+two-fluid
17
Model coupling - I
VOF two-fluid VOF
9-VOF+two-fluid
18
Model Coupling - II
definition of the "dispersion"

(i,j) (i+1,j)
i , j = func (local distribution of )
i, j = 0 stratified fluids
i, j > 0 mixed fluids

practical implementation: measured on 3x3 number of cells
19
i, j
1 = Vi, j
(i +k , j +l ) 1i , j V
9-VOF+two-fluid
i +k , j +l (i , j ) f i +k , j +l
Model Coupling III

Switch criteria between models
i, j < 0
the interface in the cell (i,j) is reconstructed
i, j > 0 , the fluids in the cell (i,j) are calculated with the
"two-fluid" model
two-fluid model
0 = 0
VOF model
0 = max
0 = 0.3 0.8
20
Tests on simple two-fluid states

9-VOF+two-fluid
Transition between VOF and two-fluid model

Wrong reconstruction:
i, j
= 0 .8
9-VOF+two-fluid
21
Advantage of the coupled model

-the distributions of the volume fraction are compared to the exact solution - in the moment of numerical dispersion the VOF model significantly increases the error - the switch to denser nodalization model may delay the error increase - at switch to two-fluid model the error is increased due to the numerical diffusion, but long time its prediction of volume fraction distribution is better than at VOF model
0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 0 0.5 5 1.0 10 t 1.5 15 2.0 20 VOF 28x28 coupled 28x28 VOF swithed to 56x56
9-VOF+two-fluid
22
Result - VOF simulation Rayleigh-Taylor instability

t=0 t=0.4 t=0.8 t=1.6 t=2.6 t=3.6 t=4.8 t=7
9-VOF+two-fluid
23
Comparison of VOF results for different grid densities

nod =
1 N
(i , j ) V
Mi, j (t ) Li, j (t )) (t ) 2
1,2
nod
f 6x30 -f 12x60 f 12X60 -f 24X120 f 24X120 -f 48X240 f 48X240 -f 96x480
1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 1 10
f =
100
9-VOF+two-fluid
24
Results - coupling of VOF and two-fluid models - Rayleigh-Taylor instability

t=0 t=0.4 t=0.8 t=1.6 t=2.6 t=3.6 t=4.8 t=7
9-VOF+two-fluid
25
Comparison of coupled VOF+two-fluid model results for different grid densities

nod =
1 N
(i , j ) V
Mi, j (t ) Li, j (t )) (t ) 2
0,6
nod
fcoupled 6x30-fcoupled 12x60 fcoupled 12x60-fcoupled 24x120 fcoupled 24x120-fcoupled 48x240 fcoupled 48x240-fVOF 48x240
0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 1 10
f =
100
9-VOF+two-fluid
26
Conclusions VOF-two-fluid coupling

CONCLUSIONS The grid cell limitation causes some errors in the VOF model, like reconstruction error, advection error and numerical dispersion. Such errors cannot be reduced by applying better and more accurate interface tracking algorithm. The numerical dispersion can be avoided either by grid refinement of the mesh or switching to the two-fluid model during the simulation. The first solution is effective, when the characteristic size of the chunks does not change much during the transient. On the other hand, when the physical dispersion of the fluids is very fine, the second solution is better. The study in this paper was performed with the VOF method and the LVIRA piecewise linear reconstruction algorithm, however the results can be applied also for the other VOF reconstruction algorithms.
9-VOF+two-fluid 27
Accuracy of the interface reconstruction - I

Estimate for the accuracy of the interface reconstruction:
i, j = i, j
r n
i , j 0 separated fluids
9-VOF+two-fluid
28
Accuracy of the interface reconstruction - II
>1 mixed fluids
i, j
r n
r n
9-VOF+two-fluid
29
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 10) Simulations of Kelvin-Helmholtz instability

by
10 - K-H instability


2
Simulations of Kelvin-Helmholtz instability Contents

Same phenomena simulated with: CFX - two-fluid model with and without interface sharpening Fluent - VOF simulation and two-fluid model simulation Conservative level-set (home-made code) Additional simulation: Condensation induced water hammer in horizontal pipe
Kelvin-Helmholtz instability VOF model in Fluent

Kelvin-Helmholtz (K-H) instability is one of the basic instabilities of the two-fluid flows and affects the interface. Small density difference and negligible influence of the viscosity allow accurate inviscid linear analysis of the phenomena. K-H instability is one of the test cases for the interface tracking methods in: Validation of Advanced Computational Methods for Multiphase Flow Lemonnier , Jamet, Lebaigue, Begell House, 2005.
Thorpes experiment (Thorpe, J. Fluid Mech. 39, 1969)

Wall, u=v=0 h2=15 mm H=30 mm h1=15 mm 2=0.0015 Pas =0.04 N/m
2=780 kg/m3
2 U cr 2
1=1000 kg/m3
1=0.001 Pas Wall, u=v=0 L=1830 (200) mm U2 z=0 z
1 + 2 g 1 2 = 1 2
kcr = g /
2
cr = 2 / kcr
U1
g =4.13
10 - K-H instability 5
Thorpes experiment vs. analytical solutions

Undisturbed velocity field (far from closed ends, neglected viscosity):
U2 =
(1 2 )gh1 sin t
1 h2 + 2 h1
U1 =
(1 2 )gh2 sin t
1h2 + 2 h1
Experimental onset of instability is 1.88 s (analytical 1.5 s). Experimental critical wavelength is 25-45 mm (analytical 27 mm). Thorpes experiment is in agreement with results of the inviscid linear analysis. Linear analysis is appropriate due to the small density ratio, linear inviscid theory is insufficient at higher density ratios. Linear analysis is valid until amplitude is small.
Fluent simulation of K-H instability

Continuity equation:
r (1 ) + 1U = 0 t
Momentum equation with volumetric surface force:

r rr r r r U + UU U + (U )T = p (n )n + g t
( )
))
Implicit (first order accurate) time scheme was used to calculate velocity field and SIMPLE pressure correction. Two simulations were done: Simulation with explicit time scheme for volume fraction with geometric VOF surface reconstruction. Simulation with implicit time scheme for volume fraction without surface reconstruction.
Fluent simulation - VOF
Volume fraction field from 0.0 s to 3.55 s. Explicit time scheme, with geometric surface reconstruction used. Surface is always sharp. Grid:29x196, time step=1e-4 s, CPU time=39 h @ 2.4GHz Opteron
Fluent simulation - VOF

1x10 1x10 1x10 Amplitude [m] 1x10 1x10 1x10 1x10 1x10 1x10
-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9
measured and analytical time for onset of instability
dt=1e-3 dt=5e-3 dt=1e-4 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0 2.5 Time [s]
3.0
Growth of instability on mesh with 29x196 volumes and double precision, explicit time scheme for volume fraction, geometric surface reconstruction.
Fluent simulation - no surface reconstruction (4-equation two-fluid model)
Volume fraction field from 2.0 s to 3.0 s. Implicit time scheme, without surface reconstruction. Numerical diffusion of surface can be seen. Grid:29x196, time step=1e-4 s, CPU time=46 h @2.4 GHz Opteron
10
Fluent simulation - no surface reconstruction

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9
Fluent, dt=1e-3 Fluent, dt=1e-4 CFX, dt=1e-4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5 2.0 Time [s]
2.5
3.0
3.5
Growth of instability on mesh with 29x196 volumes and double precision, implicit time scheme for volume fraction, without surface reconstruction.
Fluent - VOF - conclusions

With linearised Navier-Stokes equations one can analytically predict onset of K-H instability and the critical wavelength. Problem was simulated with Fluent CFD program, solving non-linear Navier-Stokes equations. VOF surface tracking in Fluent code was tested Fluent simulations: Onset of instability can be predicted without surface reconstruction, but there is a significant diffusion of the surface. With surface reconstruction, surface is always sharp, but onset of instability cannot be predicted.
CFX - Kelvin-Helmholtz instability

Homogeneous two-fluid model, with surface sharpening Viscosity not neglected, 2D Continuity equation: r ( ) + (U ) = 0 = 1 + (1 ) 2 Momentum equation: r rr r r r (U )+ (UU (U + (U )T )) = p FSTF + g + FAD = 1 + (1 ) 2 t Volumetric surface tension force: r r r FSTF = (n )n Additional force as generator of the flow:
r + 2 FAD = 1 g sin 2 (1 + 2 ) / 2
13
CFX - Kelvin-Helmholtz instability

Equations are solved with implicit second order accurate time scheme. Space derivates are discretized with high resolution scheme (combination of first and second order accuracy), which reduces numerical diffusion and dispersion. CFX uses some special discretization options to keep interface sharp: A compressive differencing scheme for volume fraction Special treatment of the pressure gradient and gravity terms to ensure that flow remain well behaved at the interface Equations are solved iteratively until prescribed residual is achieved in each timestep. Structured grid was used. Only a section of the tube was simulated with periodical boundary conditions.
14
K-H instability - CFX simulation complete tube length simulated
Temporal development of the interface predicted by CFX. K-H instability in experiment is observed in the middle section of the tube after ~1.8 s. Viscosity not neglected, surface tension neglected in particular simulation. Grid:29x1790, time step=1e-4 s, CPU time=20 h @2.4 GHz Opteron
Kelvin-Helmholtz instability with surface tension
Volume fraction field from 2.0 s to 3.25 s. Most unstable wavelength in simulation is 40 mm. In experiment cr is 25-45 mm. Analytically predicted cr is 27 mm.
Grid: 29x196, time step=1e-4 s, CPU time=50 h @3.0 GHz Pentium

1x10 1x10 1x10 Amplitude [m] 1x10 1x10 1x10 1x10 1x10
-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8
analitical prediction dt=1e-4 dt=1e-3
Visible from volume fraction field
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5 2.0 Time [s]
2.5
3.0
3.5
Growth of instability on mesh with 29x196 volumes and max residual = 1e-5, double precision, different dt [s]. Tough case for CFX-5.7, very small timestep must be used

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9
dt=1e-3 dt=5e-3
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0 2.5 Time [s]
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Growth of instability on mesh with 29x196 volumes and max residual = 1e-5, double precision. There is no need for small timestep in CFX-10.
Kelvin-Helmholtz instability without surface tension
Volume fraction field from 2.0 s to 3.35 s. Most unstable wavelength (cr) in simulation is 30 mm. Analytically predicted cr is infinitely small (in simulation cr = 2x=2 mm).
19

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8
analitical prediction dt=1e-1 dt=1e-2 dt=1e-3 dt=1e-4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5 2.0 Time [s]
2.5
3.0
3.5
Growth of instability on mesh with 29x196 volumes and max residual = 1e-5, double precision, different dt [s]

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8
double precision single precision
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0 Time [s]
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Growth of instability on mesh with 29x196 volumes, dt = 0.01 s and max residual = 1e-4
21

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8
without surface tension with surface tension
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5 2.0 Time [s]
2.5
3.0
3.5
Growth of instability on mesh with 29x196 volumes dt = 1e-4 and max residual = 1e-5, double precision.
Kelvin-Helmholtz instability with CFX

With linearised Navier-Stokes equations we can analytically predict onset of K-H instability and critical wavelength. Problem was simulated with CFD programs, solving non-linear Navier-Stokes equations CFX simulations: Onset of instability can be predicted with CFX-5.7 but extremely (inconveniently) small time step must be used. Numerical diffusion of surface is relatively small. There is no need for such small timestep in CFX-10.0
23
Conservative Level-Set - Thorpe's K-H instability

Implemented wetting angle to assure proper behavior of free surface in contact with wall Still some problem in contact with wall Onset of instability: 2.35 s (exp.:1.9 s, anal.:1.5 s) Critical wavelength: 33 mm (exp.:25-45 mm, anal.:27 mm)
Grid:2440x40, time step=1e-3 s, CPU time=2 h @3.0 GHz Pentium 4 Not real aspect ratio
24
Conservative Level-Set - Thorpe's K-H instability

Real aspect ratio, only the 65 cm in the middle of the channel is shown Time [s]
2.88 2.98 3.08 3.18 3.28 3.38 3.43
25
Direct Contact Condensation

KFKI experiment done at PMK-2 facility in Hungary
2870
258 142
593
574
578
8,T1 3 water
8,T2 1
8,T3
8,T4 vapour 2
10
1309
10
1150
10
5 4 11 6
26

Simulation of the pipe in CFX
Pipe length L=2.87 m Pipe diameter d=73 mm Steam tank p=14.5 bar TV=470 K
Steam, TV=470 K
Cold water injection p=14.5 bar v=0.242 m/s TL=295 K
27

2 continuity equations, 1 Momentum eq., 2 Energy eqs. k- turbulence model Thermal phase change model for interfacial heat transfer
& GL = mGL ai
ai =
& mGL =
Both phases modeled as compressible (density and temperature are pressure dependent) Steam tables with wider range of pressures and temperatures and more interpolation points was used Main unknown -> liquid-to-interface heat transfer coefficient
HTCL (Tsat TL ) hV , sat hL

Heat transfer coefficient is calculated using surface renewal theory introduced by Hughes and Duffey 1991
a HTC L = 2 L c p , L L
1/ 2
/ L L
1/ 4
Thermal diffusivity
aL =
L L c p,L
Turbulence eddy dissipation from k- turbulence model
29

2D simulation
Heat transfer coefficient Mass transfer rate Temperature of water Void fraction of water Not real aspect ratio Grid:10x400, time step=0.03 s, CPU time=9 h @3.0 GHz Pentium

3D simulation Void fraction
Grid:4000 volumes, time step=0.03 s, CPU time=7 h @3.0 GHz Pentium
31

Interfacial mass transfer rate vs. time
0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0 2 4 time [s] 6 8 10 ny=10 ny=20 ny=40 mc [kg/s] 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0
0.03 0.025 mc [kg/s] 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0 2 4 time [s] 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 time [s] 8 10 3D 2D
mc [kg/s]
CFL=1 CFL=0.67 CFL=0.33 2 4 6 8 10
time [s]
0.035 0.03 0.025 mc [kg/s] 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 dx/dy=1 dx/dy=2 dx/dy=4 dx/dy=8
32

Temperature at the top of the pipe
200 180 temperature [C] 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 time [s] 15 20 T1 T2 T3 T4
Void fraction of steam

1
CFX
volume fraction
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 time [s] 15 20
T1 T2 T3 T4
200 180 160 temperature [C] 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 time [s] 15 20
Exp.
volume fraction T1 T2 T3 T4
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 time [s] 15 20 T1 T2 T3 T4
33

Small increase of water temperature -> Small condensation rate Heat transfer coefficient was increased by factor 20 -> better agreement with experiment
34

T1 measuring point
1 0,9 0,8 volume fraction 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 0 5 10 time [s] 15 20
cfx exp
temperature [C]
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 time [s] 15
cfx exp
T1
T1
20
35

T2 measuring point
cfx exp
temperature [C] 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 time [s] 15 20
cfx exp
T2
T2
36

T3 measuring point
cfx exp
cfx exp
T3
T3
37

T4 measuring point
cfx exp
cfx exp
T4
T4
38

Increased heat transfer coefficient by factor 20
Heat transfer coefficient Mass transfer rate Temperature of water Void fraction of water Not real aspect ratio Grid:10x400, time step=0.03 s, CPU time=9 h @3.0 GHz Pentium

With increased heat transfer coefficient by factor 20 comparison with experiment is much better. New correlation for heat & mass transfer in stratified flow is being developed within NURESIM project Different phenomena occurs Small condensation rate -> reflection of the wave and bubble entrapping Large condensation rate -> bubble entrapping due to instability
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 11) WAHA code - mathematical model and numerical scheme
by
WAHA-maths-numerics

INTRODUCTION Lectures 1-2 3-6 7-10 TWO-FLUID MODELS Lecture INTERFACE TRACKING IN 3D TWO-PHASE FLOWS Lectures
ONE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS OF FAST TRANSIENTS 11) WAHA code - mathematical model and numerical scheme 12) WAHA code - simulations 13) Hands on: simulation of two-phase water hammer transient and two-phase critical flow. 14) Fluid-structure interaction in 1D piping systems DNS OF THE PASSIVE SCALAR TRANSFER IN THE CHANNEL AND FLUME Lectures 15-18
WAHA-maths-numerics 2
WAHA code - mathematical model and numerical scheme - Contents

- WAHA code - introduction - Two-fluid model of WAHA code - "non-standard" terms in WAHA two-fluid model - Closure equations of WAHA code - WAHA code numerical scheme - operator splitting - convective terms 1st step - source terms 2nd step - WAHA special models: pipe expansion, contraction (abrupt area change), branch, forces - Water properties of the WAHA code
WAHA code - mathematical model and numerical scheme - reference
- WAHA code manual, available on internet
www2.ijs.si/~r4www/waha3_manual.pdf
WAHA-maths-numerics
Two-fluid model of WAHA code

Six-equation, two-fluid model, similar to codes like RELAP5, TRAC, CATHARE, TRACE, etc.
Continuity equations:
Momentum equations:
Internal energy equations:
g
1 dA ( x ) p p (1 - ) f ( v f w ) = g (1 - ) f ( v f w ) + + (1 - ) f ( v f w ) K x A( x ) dx t t x g 1 dA ( x ) p p g ( v g w ) + + g (v g w) K = g g ( v g w ) + g K x t t x A( x ) dx + (1 - ) f K
(1 - ) f vf vf p + (1 - ) f ( v f w ) + (1 - ) CVM p i = C i | v r | v r g ( v i v f ) + (1 ) f g cos F f , wall t x x x
(1 - ) f
vg vg p + g (v g w) + + CVM + p i = C i | v r | v r + g ( v i v g ) + g g cos Fg , wall x x x t
(1 ) f
uf uf (1 - )( v f w ) p p p p + p (1 ) K +p + p(1 - )( v f w ) K (1 - )w = + (1 - ) f ( v f w ) t x t t x x x 1 dA ( x ) Qif g (u *f u f ) + v f F f , wall (1 )( v f w ) p A( x ) dx
( v g w ) ug ug 1 dA ( x ) p p p = Q ig + g (u * u g ) + v g Fg , wall ( v g w ) p w +p + p (v g w) K + pK + g (v g w) +p g A ( x ) dx x x t x t t x
WAHA-maths-numerics

Momentum equations:
g
(1 - ) f
vg vg p + g (v g w) + + CVM + p i = C i | v r | v r + g ( v i v g ) + g g cos Fg , wall t x x x
(1 ) f
LHS: cdifferential terms RHS: sources


Momentum equations:
g
(1 - ) f
(1 ) f
Pipe elasticity (Wylie, Streeter):
A( x, t ) = A( x) + Ae ( p ( x, t ))
WAHA-maths-numerics
dAe D dp = = K dp A( x) d E

Momentum equations:
g
(1 - ) f
(1 ) f
Additional closure relations:

1) Equations of state (more later):
WAHA-maths-numerics
k d p + k duk . d k = p uk uk p

Momentum equations:
g
(1 - ) f
(1 ) f

2) Virtual mass term is used to obtain hyperbolicity of equations
vg v f vf vg CVM = (1 S )Cvm (1- ) m +v f - vg t x t x WAHA-maths-numerics 9

Momentum equations:
g
(1 - ) f
(1 ) f
i 3) Interfacial pressure term exists WAHA-maths-numerics only in stratified flow.
p = S (1 )( f g ) gD
10

Momentum equations:
g
p (1 - ) f ( v f w ) p 1 dA ( x ) + + (1 - ) f ( v f w ) K = g (1 - ) f ( v f w ) t t x x A( x ) dx g 1 dA ( x ) p p g ( v g w ) + + g (v g w) K = g g ( v g w ) + g K x t t x A( x ) dx + (1 - ) f K
(1 - ) f
(1 ) f

4) Source terms are flow regime dependent. Source terms are: 4.1) Terms with Ci - inter-phase drag

Momentum equations:
g
1 dA ( x ) p p (1 - ) f ( v f w ) + + (1 - ) f ( v f w ) K = g (1 - ) f ( v f w ) x t t x A( x ) dx g 1 dA ( x ) p p g ( v g w ) + + g (v g w) K = g g ( v g w ) + g K x t t x A( x ) dx + (1 - ) f K
(1 - ) f
(1 ) f
uf uf (1 - )( v f w ) p p p + (1 - ) f ( v f w ) p + p (1 ) K +p + p(1 - )( v f w ) K (1 - )w = t x t t x x x 1 dA ( x ) Qif g (u *f u f ) + v f F f , wall (1 )( v f w ) p A( x ) dx

4.2a) Terms with inter-phase exchange of mass and energy with: g=-(Qif+Qig)/(hg-hf) - vapor generation term

Momentum equations:
g
1 dA ( x ) p p (1 - ) f ( v f w ) + + (1 - ) f ( v f w ) K = g (1 - ) f ( v f w ) x t t x A( x ) dx g 1 dA ( x ) p p g ( v g w ) + + g (v g w) K = g g ( v g w ) + g K x t t x A( x ) dx + (1 - ) f K
(1 - ) f
(1 ) f
( v g w ) ug ug 1 dA ( x ) p p p + p (v g w) K w = Q ig + g (u * u g ) + v g Fg , wall ( v g w ) p +p + pK +p + g (v g w) g A ( x ) dx x x x x t t t

4.2b) Terms with inter-phase exchange of mass and energy with: Qik=Hik (Ts-Tk) - interface heat transfer terms

Momentum equations:
g
(1 - ) f 1 dA ( x ) p p (1 - ) f ( v f w ) + + (1 - ) f ( v f w ) K = g (1 - ) f ( v f w ) x t t x A( x ) dx g p g ( v g w ) p 1 dA ( x ) + + g (v g w) K + g K = g g ( v g w ) t t x x A( x ) dx + (1 - ) f K
vf vf p + (1 - ) f ( v f w ) + (1 - ) CVM p i = C i | v r | v r g ( v i v f ) + (1 ) f g cos F f , wall t x x x
(1 - ) f
(1 ) f
ug ug ( v g w ) 1 dA ( x ) p p p + g (v g w) +p + pK +p + p (v g w) K w = Q ig + g (u * u g ) + v g Fg , wall ( v g w ) p g A ( x ) dx t x t t x x x

4.3) Terms due to the variable pipe cross-section.

Momentum equations:
g
(1 - ) f
(1 ) f

4.4) Ff,wall , Fg,wall - wall friction (Dynamical wall friction model available too).

Momentum equations:
g
(1 - ) f
(1 ) f

4.5) Term with g cos - volumetric forces.

Momentum equations:
g
(1 - ) f
(1 ) f

4.6) Terms for wall heat transfer are neglected in WAHA code.

Closure relations are flow regime dependent: WAHA flow regime map:
Horizontally stratified flow S=1 Transitional area 1>S>0 Dispersed flow S=0
> 0.95 Droplet flow 0.95 > > 0.5 Transitional flow < 0.5 Bubbly flow
Critical velocity (Kelvin-Helmholtz instability)
0.5 vcrit
vcrit
(1 ) + vcrit = gD( f g ) g f
vr
Stratification factor S:
S K H 1 vr = L1 v critical 0
S = S K H X inclination X v X v X X 1
v r < L 2 v critical L1 v critical
(L1 L2 )
L 2 v critical v r
v r L1 v critical
1 X v = (100 v m ) (100 25) 0

1 6 = 5 10 10 3 5 10 6 0
v m < 25 m / s 25 m / s v m 100 m / s v m 100 m / s

< 5 10 6 5 10 6 10 3 10 3
X v
1 = (30000 m v m ) (30000 2500) 0
m v m < 2500 kg / m 2 s
2500 kg / m 2 s m v m 30000 kg / m 2 s
)(
) )
m v m 30000 kg / m 2 s < 30 0
X inclination
1 0 = 60 60 0 30 0 0
)(
30 0 60 0
X 1
60 0
1 = (1 ) 5 10 6 10 3 5 10 6 0
)(
WAHA-maths-numerics
(1 ) < 5 10 6 5 10 (1 ) 10 3 (1 ) 10 3 18
6
Inter-phase momentum transfer

Dispersed flow:
Vapor volume fraction: interfacial friction coefficient: drag coefficient: interfacial area concentration:
LEGEND: - abub/ adrp is modified vapor/liquid volume fraction - d0 is average slug diameter - Re is Reynolds number
< 0.5
Ci =
Bubbly flow
> 0.95 Droplet flow

1 Ci = max g CD a gf , 0.1 8
1 f CD a gf 8
0.75
CD = 24(1 + 0.1Re
) / Re
24(1 + 0.1Re0.75 ) , 0.5 CD = min Re
agf = 3.6 / d0
agf = 3.6 (1 ) / d0
(1 q )
0.95 q= 0.95 0.5
r
Bubbly-to-droplet transition: Ci = Ci bubbly

Horizontally stratified flow:
) (Ci droplet )
q
r = 0. 3
(vk vi ) 2 1 Ci = k fk a gf 8 (v g v f ) 2
k = g, f
Dispersed-to-horizontaly stratified:
Ci = S Ci stratified + (1 S ) Ci dispersed
)
19
WAHA-maths-numerics
Inter-phase heat&mass trans.

Vapor generation rate g is calculated as:
g =
Qif + Qig h h
* g * f
The volumetric heat fluxes are calculated as:

,
hk* - specific enthalpies, Qik - liquid-to-interface and gas-to-interface heat fluxes
Qik = H ik (TS T f )
Horizontally stratified flow: Dittus-Boelter type of correlation:
H ik =
2 Nuk akf kk
k = g, f
1 f k (Rek 1000) Prk 4, 8 Nuk = max f 1 + 12.7 k (Prk 0.67 1) 8
Dispersed-to-horizontaly stratified: interpolation
H if = S H if stratified + (1 S ) H if dispersed
WAHA-maths-numerics
)
20
Inter-phase heat&mass trans.

Dispersed flow (Downar-Zapolski HRM model):
Homogeneous Relaxation Model (HRM) vapor generation g: g = m X X Saturation
Legend:
vapor heat transfer coefficient Hig:
H ig
max( ,10 5 ) = 10 (1 + (100 + 25 )) max( ,10 9 )

6
m mixture density X - quality - relaxation time - temperature relation TS Saturation temp. Tk phase temp. hk phase enthalpy
fluid heat transfer coefficient Hif:
(TS T f ) vapor or fluid volumetric heat flux Qik:
H if =
* H ig TS Tg g hg h* f
Qik = H ik (TS T f ) k = g or f
Some other capabilities of WAHA code:

Wall friction (steady): Fk , wall = f wk Minor loses at elbows:
k vk vk (1 ) k 2D m
f ml
D = 2 x
Unsteady wall friction:
(t ) = s (t ) + un (t )
t
un (t ) = un (t t )e
+ kT cv
transient friction coefficient kT relaxation time
Instantaneous relaxation available for inter-phase heat, mass, and momentum transfer - such results are similar to results of HEM model. Boundary conditions: closed end, constant pressure (tank), and constant mass flow rate (pump). Tank allows modelling of critical flow at the boundary.
WAHA numerical scheme

Numerical scheme is based on characteristic upwind methods and operator splitting. Operator splitting: 1) Convection and non-relaxation source terms - source terms due to the smooth area change, wall friction and volumetric forces are solved in the first sub step with r r r upwind discretisation:
+B = S NON _ RELAXATION , t x
2) Relaxation (inter-phase exchange) source terms: r r d A = S RELAXATION dt Relaxation source terms: inter-phase heat, mass and momentum exchange terms are stiff, i.e., their characteristic time scales can be much shorter that the time scales of the hyperbolic part of the equations. Integration of the relaxation sources within the operator-splitting scheme is performed with variable time steps, which depend on the stiffness of the source terms. Upwinding is not used for calculation of the relaxation source terms.
Equation solved:
r 1 +C = A SN R . t x
Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of Jacobian matrix are found:
C = L L
r RA contains source terms due to the variable pipe cross-section r RF contains wall friction and volumetric forces (no derivatives).
Source terms are rewritten: r r r A r 1 + L L + RA + RF = 0 . t x x
r r r A r x 1 1 1 1 1 1 + L + L RA + L RF =0 . Equation rewritten: L t x x x
Equation rewritten:
r A r x 1 1 1 1 1 L + L + L RA + L RF =0 . t x x x
1
Modified characteristic variables are introduced as :

1
r r 1 1 = L + L RA A + L RF x . r
1 1
characteristic-like form of Eqs:

(allows 2nd order accurate discretisation with application of slope limiters)
+ =0 . t x
Slopes are not measured by Modified characteristic variables but rather r r 1 r with variables: 1 1
= = L + L RAA + L RF x
WAHA-maths-numerics
25
The combination of the first- and the second-order accurate discretisation is r n+1 r n rn rn rn rn (Godunovs method): j - j j - j -1 j+1 - j -- n ++ n =0 + ( ) j+1/2 + ( ) j -1/2 t x x where elements of diagonal matrices + + , are calculated as: t ++ + + = k f k+ + k = 1,6 - 1 , k = 1,6 f k = max 0 , k + k k k | | x 2 and k t - = k f k k = 1,6 k - 1 , k = 1,6 f = min 0 , k - k k
k
| k |
Different slope limiters second order correction:

MINMOD
p = max(0 , min(1 , p ))
Van Leer p = ( p + p ) /( p + 1)
Superbee p = max(0,min(2 p ,1),min( p , 2))
Difference scheme (basic variables) used in the WAHA code for convective r r r part is: r A j 1 / 2 + + j 1 / 2 j +1 / 2 1 + + 1 1 ++ 1 1 L + + L RA + L = L x x x t r A j +1 / 2 r r 1 1 ++ 1 1 1 1 + L RA + L R F j 1 / 2 + L R F j +1 / 2 x
WAHA-maths-numerics
26

Basic variables are ~ primitive variables,
= ( p, , v f ,vg , u f , ug )
(phasic internal energies uf , ug replaced with the phasic densities, due to the applied water property subroutines)
The preferred set of variables would be conservative variables:
= [(1 - ) f , g ,(1 - ) f v f , g vg , (1 - ) f e f , g eg]

Conservative variables were not used due to: 1) Equations of two-fluid model cannot be written in conservative form, due to the pressure gradient terms, virtual mass terms, interfacial pressure terms, and possibly other correlations that contain derivatives... 2) Oscillations appear in the vicinity of particular discontinuities, if complex systems of equations are solved with conservative variables. 3) "Non-standard" water property subroutines are required that calculate two-phase properties ( p , , f , g ) from the conservative variables ( (1- ) f , g ,(1- ) f u f , g u g ).

Relaxation source terms: inter-phase heat, mass and momentum exchange terms are stiff, i.e., their characteristic time scales can be much shorter that the time scales of the hyperbolic part of the equations. Second equation of the operator splitting scheme r
m+1 = m + A1( m )S ( m )tS
is integrated over a single time step with variable time steps that depend on the stiffness of the relaxations and can be much shorter that the convective time step .
The time step for the integration of the source terms is not constant and is controlled by the relative change of the basic variables. Currently, the maximal relative change of the basic variables in one step of the integration is limited to 0.01 to obtain results that are "numerics" independent. Time step is further reduced when it is necessary to prevent the change of relative velocity direction, or to prevent the change of sign of phasic temperature differences.

Relaxation source terms of the WAHA two-fluid model do not affect the properties of the mixture in a given point: mixture density , mixture momentum , and mixture total energy should remain unchanged after the integration of the relaxation source terms. It is in principle possible to choose a set of basic variables:
M = ( m ,vm m ,em m ,vg v f , Tf ,Tg )

that enables simplified integration of the relaxation source terms. Only a system of three differential equations is solved instead of the system of six. This reduction of the system is only partially taken into account in WAHA numerical scheme: only one relaxation equation for inter-phase friction is solved for the relative velocity. Similar reduction of the thermal relaxation source terms is not used, because it is difficult to calculate the state of the fluid from the variables that are result of such relaxation.
WAHA special models:

Abrupt area change: The abrupt area change model is needed, when flow passes through a sudden expansion or contraction area in a channel The implemented abrupt area change models are built on 3 basic assumptions:
steady-state balance conditions for conservative variables across the area change no generation (or loss) of mass, momentum and energy preservation of characteristics in each pipe
x [ k k vk A] = 0 x [ k vk ( k wk + p ) A] = 0
2 x k k vk
[ (
+ p A = [ k p ] x A
)]
i2
i2+1
i2+2
A1
i1-2 i1-1 i1
A2
k n
WAHA-maths-numerics
30

Abrupt area change two-phase test case
[MPa]
16.0 15.0 14.0 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
0.7 0.6
WAHA, simplified
WAHA, cons-char WAHA, conservative Relap5 mod3.2.2g 1.0
[]
WAHA, simplified
WAHA, cons-char
WAHA, conservative Relap5 mod3.2.2g
Expansion at l = 3 m
0.8
0.9
pressure
[m]
0.5 0.4 5.0 0.0
VVF
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
[m]
5.0
Current abrupt area change models do not contain the generation or loss of momentum and energy, where flow passes the abrupt area change. These models especially momentum losses - must be included in abrupt area change model to obtain more realistic behaviour of flow on the abrupt area change. Important:
Abrupt area change model was verified for the single-phase flow only. Reduced CFL number is recommended with values ~0.5 Minor losses are not included in the abrupt area change model.

Branch model
A branch model is applied to connect three pipes in a single point Model of branch is based on the abrupt area change model. Branch model in WAHA3 tested in single phase flow only.
GEOMETRY (P1/P6/P2): Length l = 10/5/3 m Diameter d = 7.9/7.9/0.7 mm INITIAL CONDITIONS (P1/P6/P2): Temperature T = 293/293/293 K Vapor velocity v = 1/0.769/0.769 m/s Presure p = 80/80/80 bar Vapor volume fraction - pure liquid
p= const.
const.
1 1 2 3 4
.. Pipe 2.. 29 30
3 4
Closed end
...
WAHA RELAP
Pipe 1
...
97 98 99 100 1 2
...Pipe 6...
p3 [MPa]
9.4 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.6
47 48 49 50
p1 [MPa]
9.2 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.0 7.8 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
p2 [MPa]
9.2 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.0 7.8
WAHA RELAP
WAHA RELAP
8.4 8.2 8.0 7.8 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
[s]
0.010
0.000
[s]
0.010
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
[s]
0.010
WAHA-maths-numerics
32

Forces
- from American National Standard, ANSI/ANS-58.2-1988, Revision of ANSI/ANS-58.2-1980, Design basis for protection of light water nuclear power plant against the effects of postulated pipe rupture,, Appendix A: Derivation ofv v v fluid force equations. - WAHA code can calculate forces on the 3D piping system. Pipe 1 - Forces are calculated on the edges of the volumes.
1 2
v n n 1
..
..
v Fi
v ri
x
v ri +1
i+1
v v v F0 F1 F2
v v v Fn 2 Fn1 Fn
Ai p i vi
Ai+1 pi+1 vi+1
r F is dynamic fluid thrust force vector on pipe r d ( v ) dV r r r r r r r r F = + v v dA + pdAin + pdAout + pambient dApipe gdV dt c.v. c.s . Ain Aout Apipe c .v.
WAHA-maths-numerics
33

Forces
PIPE
GS5
0 -5000 0
MEMBRANE
GS1
force on the Edwards's pipe 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
CLOSED END
GS7
-10000 force (N) -15000 -20000 -25000 -30000 -35000 -40000 time (s)
0.015
total force A*p
L = 4.097 m, A = 4.2 10-2 m2
Edward'spipe - force on the pipe 0 -5000 0 -10000

force (N)
0.005
0.01
-15000 -20000 -25000 -30000 -35000 -40000

time (s) Total force pressure*crossection
WAHA-maths-numerics
34
Water properties of the WAHA code:

EoS:
k k d p + d k = du k p uk p u k
250
Sa tura tion Va por s pinoda l (e xte nde d) Liquid s pinoda l (e xte nde d) Ne ga tive pre s s ure Va por s pinoda l Liquid s pinoda l
Thermodynamic properties of liquid and steam are based on NBS/NRC-84 formulation

P res s ure [bar]
200
150
Pre-tabulated and stored in ASCII file:

400 pressures (-95 1000 bar) 500 temperatures (273 1638 K)
100
50
Extended into negative pressure (up to 95 bar) Extended liquid and vapor spinodal lines
-50
Ne ga tive pre s s ure a re a in the Wa ha
-100 250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
Temperature [K]
WAHA-maths-numerics
35

- Comparison: WAHA code with the WAHA steam tables and WAHA code with the steam tables of RELAP5/MOD3.2.2 Gamma (internal version of WAHA code) - Propagation of pressure waves in single-phase liquid and in single-phase vapor shock tube - Differences are more due to the slightly different time steps than due to the different water properties.
2100000 1900000 1700000
p(Pa)
2100000 1900000 1700000

p(Pa)
RELAP5 steam tables t=0.60514ms
1500000 1300000 1100000 900000 0 0.5 1

length (m)
WAHA steam tables t=0.60008ms
1500000 1300000
RELAP5 steam tables t=1.0008ms
1100000 900000
WAHA steam tables t=1.0065ms
1.5
0.5
1
length (m)
1.5
Single-phase liquid wave - pressure.
Single-phase vapor wave - pressure.

36
WAHA-maths-numerics

- Comparison: WAHA code with the WAHA steam tables and WAHA code with the steam tables of RELAP5/MOD3.2.2 Gamma (internal version of WAHA code) - Edwards pipe problem - rapid depressurization of the hot liquid in a horizontal pipe - Calculations were performed with instantaneous relaxation of inter-phase heat, mass and momentum transfer.
7.E+06 6.E+06 5.E+06 p (Pa) 4.E+06 3.E+06 2.E+06 1.E+06 0.E+00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 time (s) 0.4 0.5 0.6
RELAP5 steam tables WAHA steam tables
1.E+00 1.E+00 vapor volume fraction 8.E-01 6.E-01

RELAP5 steam tables
4.E-01
WAHA steam tables
2.E-01 0.E+00 0 -2.E-01 time (s) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Edwards pipe problem - pressure.
Edwards pipe problem - vapor volume fraction.

Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 12) WAHA code - simulations
by
WAHA-simulations

WAHA-simulations 2
WAHA code - simulations

Edwards pipe:
CLOSED END
GS7 GS5
PIPE
MEMBRANE
GS1
L = 4.097 m, A = 4.2 10-2 m2 Transient: - rapid depressurization of the hot liquid from the horizontal pipe
Aim: - test case for codes used to simulate LOCA accidents in NPPs - to verify several WAHA code physical models like:
- propagation of the rapid depressurization wave - the pressure undershoot model - the flashing model - propagation of the void fraction wave - the two-phase critical flow - transition into the horizontally stratified flow
WAHA-simulations A. R. Edwards, T. P. O'Brien, Studies of phenomena connected with the depressurization of water reactors, Journal of the British Nuclear Energy Society, 9, 125135, 1970. 3

Edwards pipe:
CLOSED END
GS7 GS5
PIPE
MEMBRANE
GS1
Boundary conditions: - left: closed end L = 4.097 m, A = 4.2 10-2 m2 - right: constant pressure pT = 1 bar - cross-section of the break is 12.5% smaller than cross-section of the pipe. Initial conditions: -velocity: stagnant liquid -pressure p = 70 bar -temperature T = 515 K Conclusion: - The accuracy of the WAHA code predictions is comparable to the accuracy of the RELAP5 predictions despite a much simpler flow regime map and absence of a special critical flow model.
WAHA-simulations 4

Pressure in GS1 [MPa]
7
Edwards pipe:
6
Expe rime nt WAHA3
P res s ure in GS 1 [MP a]
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 5

Pressure in GS7 [MPa]
Edwards pipe:
7 Expe rime nt WAHA3
P res s ure in GS 7 [MP a]
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 6

Vapor volume fraction in GS5
1
Edwards pipe:
Vapor volume fraction in GS 5 []
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Expe rime nt WAHA3
0.5
0.6
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 7

Temperature in GS5 [K]
Edwards pipe:
550 Expe rime nt WAHA3 - liquid WAHA3 - va por
500
Temperature in GS 5 [K]
450
400
350
300
250
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 8

Super Moby Dick exp.
inlet
outlet
Transient: - high pressure Super Moby Dick experiment performed at CEA in Grenoble in 80s - steady state two-phase critical flashing flow in the convergent-divergent nozzle (Faucher). Aim: - to verify the Homogeneous-Relaxation Model (Lemonnier) used in the WAHA code to model inter-phase heat and mass transfer in dispersed flow - to verify conservation properties of the WAHA code in the variable crosssection geometry.
E. Faucher, Simulation numerique des ecoulements unidimensionnels instationnaires avec autovaporisation, Doctorat de luniverse Paris Val de Marne, (2002). WAHA-simulations 9

inlet
outlet
Boundary conditions: -inlet: constant pressure pR = 80 bar, temperature T = 549.6 K (20/465.7) -outlet: constant pressure pL = 47 bar, temperature T = 465.5 K Conclusion: - advantage of the WAHA code: critical flow is simulated with standard discretisation and boundary conditions - non-conservative numerical scheme: - overall loss of mass flow along the nozzle is less than 0.7 % - maximum non-conservation is less than ~1.5% (strong phase changes).
WAHA-simulations
10

Why critical flow?
c Vliq Vvap
[m/s]
10000
1000
100
10
1 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75
[m] 0.90
11
WAHA-simulations

Why flashing flow? (VVF=)
[K]
490 485 480 475 470 465 460 455 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2
T sat
T liq
VVF
[VVF]
0.5 0.4
490 480 470 460 450 440 430 420 410
[K]
T sat
T liq
VVF
[VVF]
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
[m]
0.90
0.00
0.15
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.75
[m]
0.90
pinlet = 20 bar poutlet = 16 bar > pSAT = cca 13 bar

WAHA-simulations
pinlet = 20 bar poutlet = 4 bar < pSAT

12

Pressure [bar]
WAHA 1 EXP 1 WAHA 2 EXP 2 WAHA 3 EXP 3
[MPa]
12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.15
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.75
[m]
0.90
13
WAHA-simulations

[]
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.15
WAHA 1 EXP 1
Vapor volume fraction

WAHA 2 EXP 2 WAHA 3 EXP 3
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.75 [m] 0.90

14
WAHA-simulations

Mass flow rate [kg/s]
WAHA 2 EXP 3 WAHA 3 EXP 2
[kg/s]
20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 0.00 0.15
WAHA 1 EXP 1
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.75
[m] 0.90
15
WAHA-simulations

Simpsons pipe:
TANK PIPE VALVE
Measuring point
Initial flow direction
Transient: - column separation water hammer induced due by rapid valve closure.
L = 36 m, A = 2.85 10-4 m2, e = 1.6 mm, E = 120 GPa
Aim: - fundamental benchmark for two-phase computer codes because of the simple: - geometry, - initial conditions and - water hammer initiating mechanism.
A. R. Simpson, 1986, Large water hammer pressures due to column separation in sloping pipes, Ph.D thesis, The University of Michigan, Department of Civil Engineering. WAHA-simulations 16

Simpsons pipe:
TANK PIPE VALVE
Measuring point
Boundary conditions: -right: closed end (valve) -left: constant pressure pT = 3.419 bar Initial conditions: -velocity v = 0.4 m/s -pressure p = 3.419 bar -temperature T = 296.3 K Effect of the elasticity taken into account.
L = 36 m, A = 2.85 10-4 m2, e = 1.6 mm, E = 120 GPa
Conclusion: At low temperatures flashing and condensation of the steam are not governed by the heat and mass transfer between both phases, but by the dynamics of the liquid column (energy equations are not needed).
WAHA-simulations 17

Pressure near the valve [MPa]
P res s ure his tory near the valve [MP a ]
Simpsons pipe:
1.2
Expe rime nt WAHA3 - e la s tic pipe WAHA3 - s tiff pipe WAHA3 - uns te a dy friction
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 18

Simpsons pipe:
VVF his tory near the valve []
0.012
Vapor volume fraction near the valve

WAHA3 - e la s tic pipe WAHA3 - s tiff pipe WAHA3 - uns te a dy friction
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 19

PPP pipeline (A. Dudlik, Fraunhofer Institut Umwelt-, Siecherheits-, Energietechnik UMSICHT, Oberhausen).
- database with over 400 experiments performed at UMSICHTs test loop (total length ~ 200 m) - advanced measuring equipment (wire mesh sensor void distribution)
WAHA-simulations
20

PPP pipeline:
44.4 m -14.5 m -8.7 m
P09
P12
50.9 m
closure valve
0m N=1
bridge
P23
P01 F 1 P
P02
P03 WM 0.2 m
P06
34.5 m 60.8 m
P15
67.0 m
VALVE TANK
146.8 m
-0.2 m
PIPELINE
81.6 m 139.4 m 84.6 m
145.5 m
P18
88.7 m 77.5 m
F 2 P
turning point
B2
-18.2 m 149.4 m
142.9 m
67.9 m
F 3 P
137.0 m 90.7 m 75.5 m
WAHA-simulations
21

34.50m
6.50m
6.50m
PIPELINE 2.00m 2.50
Modelled section: - L = 149.5 m (valve tank)
4.
00
TANK
46.50 m
3.00m
7.50m
3.50 Transient: - column separation water hammer induced due by rapid valve closure.
Boundary conditions: -left: closed end (valve) -right: constant pressure Initial conditions: -case 135: p = 1.13 bar, -case 307: p = 9.92 bar, -case 329: p = 10.18 bar, v = 3.975 m/s, v = 4.009 m/s, v = 3.975 m/s, T = 293.7 K T = 392.1 K T = 419.6 K
22
WAHA-simulations
1.00m
PPP pipeline:
VALVE
10.00m

5.5
Case 135 Steady
state pressure in P03

WAHA3 - s te a dy s ta te
PPP pipeline:
135: P res s ure his tory in P 03 [ba r]
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1
10
15
20
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 23

PPP pipeline:
135: P re s s ure his tory in P 03 [bar]
60
Case 135: Pressure near the valve [MPa]

Expe rime nt WAHA3
50
40
30
20
10
0 0
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 24

PPP pipeline:
307: P re s s ure his tory in P 03 [bar]
60

Expe rime nt WAHA3
50
40
30
20
10
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 25

55
PPP pipeline:
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8
Expe rime nt WAHA3
10
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 26

1
Case 135: near the valve [MPa]

Expe rime nt WAHA3
135: Va por volume fraction in P 03 [bar]
PPP pipeline:
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 27

1

Expe rime nt WAHA3
307: Vapor volume fraction in P 03 [bar]
PPP pipeline:
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 28

1
PPP pipeline:
329: Vapor volume fra ction in P 03
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8
Expe rime nt WAHA3
10
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 29

Case 329: pressure near the valve [MPa]
PPP pipeline:
60
50
Expe rime nt Wa ha 3 Wa ha HEM Wa ha ne g. pre s s ure
40
Influence of different relaxation models
30
20
10
0 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 30

55

Expe rime nt WAHA3 RELAP5
PPP pipeline:
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8
Comparison to RELAP5 code
10
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 31

PPP pipeline:
329: Vapor volume fraction in P 03
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Expe rime nt WAHA3 RELAP5
Comparison to RELAP5 code
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 32

50
PPP pipeline:
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3
Ste a dy s ta te , T = 419.6 K Ste a dy s ta te , T = 424.0 K Ste a dy s ta te , T = 415.0 K
Influence of different initial temperature
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 33

PPP pipeline:
329: P res s ure his tory in P 03 [bar]
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5

dx = 0.5 m (N = 299) dx = 0.25 m (N = 598) dx = 1.0 m (N = 150)
Grid refinement
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 34

CWHTF:
TANK CLOSED END
LE
Preferences: - database with 20 experiments performed at FZRs cold water hammer test facility (CWHTF) - two discontinuities initially present in the pipe that propagate with different velocity. Transient: - overpressure accelerates a column of liquid water into vacuum at the closed vertical end of the pipe
p1
Vapo r vo l. frac t. = 1.0
Wate r o nly = 0.0
VALVE
p2 evacuation pressure
LV
E. Altstadt, H. Carl, R. Weiss, CWHTF - |Cold Water-Hammer Test Facility, Forschungszentrum Rossendorf.
WAHA-simulations 35

CWHTF:
Experiment labeled 150601: Boundary conditions: - right: closed end - left: constant pressure (tank) constant pressure (precise geometry - pipe) Initial conditions: - p1 = 1 bar - p2 = 29 mbar - v = 0 m/s - T ~ 295 K
p1
CLOSED END TANK

LE
Vapo r vo l. frac t. = 1.0
Wate r o nly = 0.0
VALVE
p2 evacuation pressure
LV
Warnings: - absence of non-condensable gas model in the WAHA - no FSI effects considered
WAHA-simulations
36

50
Pressure near the closed end [bar]

Expe rime nt Ta nk Pipe
P res s ure his tory near the clos ed end [bar]
CWHTF:
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0.35
0.4
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 37

1
near the closed end [bar]

Ta nk Pipe
VVF his tory near the clos ed end [bar]
CWHTF:
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0.4
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 38

Pressure near the closed end [bar]
50
P res s ure his tory ne ar the clos ed end [ba r]
CWHTF:
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Expe rime nt Ta nk (ide a l ga s ) Pipe (ide a l ga s )
Liquid ideal gas mixture
0.3
0.35
0.4
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 39

KFKI exp.:
Preferences: - condensation induced water hammer was observed in the steamline of the integral experimental device PMK-2 that is located at the Hungarian Atomic Energy Research Institute Experiment labeled E22:
GEOMETRY: pipe length l = 2.95 m pipe diameter d = 73 mm number of volumes N = 59
Steam tank
2 1
...
Steam
...
55 56 57 58
Cold water injection
INITIAL CONDITIONS: steam temperature Ts = 470 K liquid temperature Tl = 295 K liquid velocity vl = 0.242 m/s pressure p = 14.5 bar
Boundary conditions: - right: steam tank - left: cold water intake (constant velocity) ...very complicated thermally controled transient
H.M. Prasser, G. Ezsol, G. Baranyai, PMK-2 water hammer tests, condensation caused by cold water injection into main steam-line of VVER.440-type PWR, WAHALoads project deliverable D48, 2004.
WAHA-simulations
59
40

Profile at t = 3.75 s
1 0.9
E05: Liquid volume fraction [ ]
KFKI exp.:
Transient: - liquid flows into the pipe (steam) - condensation rate increases and consequently increases relative vapor velocity over the liquid head - liquid-vapor surface becomes wavy - amplitude of the waves increase until the liquid slug is formed that captures the vapor bubble - condensation of the entrapped vapor bubble accelerates columns of liquid on both sides of the bubble - strong water hammer appears when the bubble is condensed and two liquid columns collide.
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Vapor
Liquid
Length [m]
Profile at t = 5.08 s
1 0.9
E05: Liquid volume fraction [ ]
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Vapor bubble
Liquid slug
Vapor
WAHA-simulations
Length [m]
41

200
Pressure near the water intake [bar]

Expe rime nt WAHA3
KFKI exp.:
180 160 140
P res s ure [bar]
120 100 80 60 40
detail
dispersed
20 0 4.75 4.8 4.85 4.9 4.95
Time [s ]
WAHA-simulations 42
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 13) Hands on: simulation of two-phase water hammer transient and two-phase critical flow
by
WAHA-hands-on

ONE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS OF FAST TRANSIENTS 11) WAHA code - mathematical model and numerical scheme 12) WAHA code - simulations 13) Hands on: simulation of two-phase water hammer transient and two-phase critical flow 14) Fluid-structure interaction in 1D piping systems DNS OF THE PASSIVE SCALAR TRANSFER IN THE CHANNEL AND FLUME Lectures 15-18
WAHA-hands-on 2
WAHA code - mathematical model and numerical scheme - reference
- WAHA code manual, available on internet
WAHA-hands-on
- input file for Simpson's water hammer transient

title simpson test - elastic pipe *--------time constants---------------------------------* beg end maj_out min_out diff restart time00 0 2.0e-1 4.e-3 2.e-3 0.80 0.01 time01 0.2 3.0e-1 2.e-3 1.e-3 0.80 0.01 * fluid order abr_model eig_val_out extend_out maj_results switch 1 2 3 1 1 1 * ambient_press force_out force 1.e+5 0.001 *-------------minor output -------------------------------TANK * pipe volume variable print00 1 100 1 print02 1 100 2 print03 1 100 3 print04 1 100 5 print05 1 100 7 print06 1 100 9 print07 1 20 1 print08 1 20 2 print09 1 20 3 *-------------pipes -------------------------------* type name comp001ty pipe cev_01 * length elast thick rough w.fr.f p.fr.f h.m.tr. comp001g0 36.0-0 1.2e11 1.6e-3 0.0e0 0 0 0 * area incl azim f_coeff which comp001g1 2.85e-4 0. 0.0 1.0 30 + 2.85e-4 0. 0.0 1.0 100 * type press alpha_g velf velg uf ug comp001s0 agpvu 3.419e5 0.0 0.4 0.0 97.67e3 0.0 * from to comp001c0 002-99 000-00 *------------------------------------------------------* type name comp002ty tank tank_01 * length elast thick rough w.fr.f p.fr.f h.m.tr. comp002g0 0.0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0e0 0 0 0 * area incl azim f_coeff which comp002g1 2.85e-4 0. 0.0 1.0 0 * type press alpha_g velf velg uf ug comp002s0 agpvu 3.419e5 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.67e3 0.0 * from to comp002c0 000-00 001-01 *************************************************************** end
PIPE
VALVE
Measuring point
nods 100
L = 36 m, A = 2.85 10-4 m2, e = 1.6 mm, E = 120 GPa
wch_nods 100
nods 0
wch_nods 0
WAHA-hands-on
- input file for Moby-Dick two-phase critical flow transient 1/3

title - two-phase critical flashing flow in the super moby dick nozzle * case 20B192C: pin=20 bar, Tin=192.3 C * case 80B276C: pin=80.0bar Tin=275.5 C * case 120B305C: pin=120.0bar Tin=305.7 C *--------time constants---------------------------------* beg end maj_out min_out diff restart time00 0 0.2e+0 5.0e-3 8.0e-4 0.80 1.0 * fluid order abr_model eig_val_out extend_out maj_results switch 1 2 3 0 1 1 *-------------pipes -------------------------------* type name comp001ty pipe * length elast thick rough w.fr.f p.fr.f h.m.tr. nods comp001g0 0.9 0.0 1.588e-3 0.0 0 0 0 * crossct inclin azim which_nodes comp001g1 0.003494 0. 0.0 1.0 1 + 0.0032 0. 0.0 1.0 2 + 0.0029 0. 0.0 1.0 3 ... slide 2/3 + + * 4.126256E-3 0. 4.266039E-3 0. type press wch_nods *comp001s0 agpvt 20.08e5 comp001s0 agpvt 80.00e5 *comp001s0 agpvt 120.06e5 * from comp001c0 002-99 003-01 ... slide 3/3 0.0 1.0 89 0.0 1.0 90 alpha_g velf 0.00 0.00 0.00
90
velg
tf
tg 90 90 90
0.1e0 0.0 0.1e0 0.0 0.1e0 0.0
465.5 0.0 549.6 0.0 578.7 0.0
WAHA-hands-on
inlet
comp001g1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0.003494 0.0032 0.0029 0.0024 0.0020 0.0017 0.0013 0.0008 0.0005 0.000350 0.0003183 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 46 47
40 45
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
outlet
1.3091682E-3 0. 1.3884127E-3 0. 1.4699855E-3 0. 1.5538868E-3 0. 1.6401168E-3 0. 1.7286747E-3 0. 1.8195612E-3 0. 1.9127764E-3 0. 2.0083198E-3 0. 2.1061913E-3 0. 2.2063916E-3 0. 2.30892E-3 2.413777E-3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
3.5791826E-4 0. 3.9990842E-4 0. 4.4422692E-4 0. 4.908738E-4 5.398491E-4 5.911529E-4 0. 0. 0.
Nozzle cros s -s ection [cm ]
48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
+ + + + + + + + + +
2.5209623E-3 0. 2.630476E-3 2.742318E-3 0. 0.
2.8564883E-3 0. 2.9729874E-3 0. 3.0918144E-3 0. 3.2129711E-3 0. 3.336455E-3 0.
6.4478494E-4 0. 7.007455E-4 7.590344E-4 8.196517E-4 8.825974E-4 0. 0. 0. 0.
3.4622678E-3 0. 3.5904084E-3 0. 3.7208776E-3 0. 3.8536756E-3 0. 3.9888015E-3 0. 4.126256E-3 4.266039E-3 0. 0.
+ +
9.4787165E-4 0. 1.0154742E-3 0. 1.085405E-3 0.
59 60 61 62
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Length [m]
0.9 +
+ +
1.1576643E-3 0. 1.232252E-3 0.
WAHA-hands-on

*------------------------------------------------------* type name comp002ty tank tank_01 * length elast thick rough w.fr.f p.fr.f h.m.tr. nods comp002g0 0.0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 8 8 0 * crossct inclin azim f_coeff which_nodes comp002g1 0.003494 0.0 0.0 1.0 0 * type press alpha_g velf velg tf tg wch_nods *comp002s0 agpvt 20.08e5 0.0 0.1 0.0 465.5 0.0 0 comp002s0 agpvt 80.00e5 0.0 0.1 0.0 549.6 0.0 0 *comp002s0 agpvt 120.06e5 0.0 0.1 0.0 578.7 0.0 0 * from to comp002c0 000-00 001-01 *------------------------------------------------------* type name comp003ty tank tank_03 * length elast thick rough w.fr.f p.fr.f h.m.tr. nods comp003g0 0.0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 8 8 0 * crossct inclin azim f_coeff which_nodes comp003g1 4.266039E-3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0 * type press alpha_g velf velg tf tg wch_nods *comp003s0 agpvt 7.000e5 0.0 0.1 0.0 465.5 465.5 0 comp003s0 agpvt 47.000e5 0.0 0.1 0.0 465.5 465.5 0 *comp003s0 agpvt 77.000e5 0.0 0.1 0.0 465.5 465.5 0 * from to comp003c0 001-99 000-00 *************************************************************** * end
WAHA-hands-on
Seminar on
Two-phase flow modelling 14) Fluid-structure interaction in 1D piping systems
by
1D-piping-FSI

1D-piping-FSI 2
Fluid-structure interaction in 1D piping systems - Contents

- References - Introduction - types of fluid-structure interactions - Typical mathematical models for 1D FSI in piping systems - Examples - Numerical methods - Two phase FSI
1D-piping-FSI
Fluid-structure interaction in 1D piping systems - References

A. S. Tijsseling, Fluid-structure interaction in liquid-filled pipe systems a review, Journal of Fluids and Structures, 10 109-146, 1996. D. C. Wiggert, A. S. Tijsseling, Fluid transients and fluid-structure interaction in flexible liquid-filled piping, ASME Applied Mechanical Review, 54 5 455-481, 2001. D. J. Leslie, A. E. Vardy, Practical guidelines for fluid-structure interaction in pipelines a review, Proc. of the 10th international meeting of the work group on the behaviour of hydraulic machinery under steady oscillatory conditions, 2001. D. C. Wiggert, Coupled transient flow and structural motion in liquid-filled piping systems a survey, Proc. of the ASME Pressure Vessels in Piping Conference, Paper 86-PVP-4, 1986. R. A. Valentin, J. W. Phillips, J. S. Walker, Reflection and transmission of fluid transients at an elbow, Transactions of SMiRT5, Paper B 2-6, 1979. R. Skalak, An extension of the theory of waterhammer, Transactions of the ASME, 78 105-116, 1956. A. Bergant, A. R. Simpson, A. S. Tijsseling, Water hammer with column separation A historical review, Journal of Fluids and Structures, 22 2 135-171, 2006
1D-piping-FSI 4
Fluid-structure interaction in 1D piping systems - Introduction
1D-piping-FSI

Fluid-Structure Interaction = FSI
Moving fluid
Pressure load
Deformed structure
Redistribution of the pressure load

Consequences: Noise, vibration, displacements and stresses (pipe) and extreme pressures (fluid). Statistical data USA (1986-2000) "Failed Pipe (Internal Force): 5979 accidents, 357 deaths, 3494 injuries, costing over $1 billion. With appropriate FSI analysis: reduction of the extreme pressures in the fluid and maximum stresses in the structure, frequency change, energy transfer control and prevention of the failures.
1D-piping-FSI 6

2
Cas e 4, with FSI (s oft pipe) Cas e 5, no FSI (s tiff pipe)
FSI during fast transients: accidental condition Conventional simulation of the fast transient: NO FSI (stiff and supported pipe)
1.5 1
} 50% higher maximal pressure!

Wylie about FSI: 98% pipelines not subjected no simple FSI inspection criterion FSI analysis necessary for all pipelines! FSI analyses have been performed only for the most important pipelines
P re s s ure [MP a ]
0.5
-0.5 -1
-1.5 0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Time [s]
Pressure near the valve (rapid valve closure transient, full axial coupling, free valve)
1D-piping-FSI

- Common Sources of FSI 1. Long lengths of unsupported or poorly supported pipework Practice: 2. Unsupported/unrestrained elbows vulnerable are parts submerged 3. Unsupported/unrestrained valves to cavitation or 4. T-junctions oxidation 5. Transient in the fluid (liquid density) - Combinations of the above - features numbered 1-5 are independently important while combinations are very important. - Vibrating machinery can induce vibrations in the pipeline. The intensity will depend on the proximity of the frequency of vibration to a natural frequency of the pipeline.
1D-piping-FSI

Another example (with and without FSI) Tank-straight pipe-valve system:
Pressure near the rapidly closed valve (rapid valve closure transient, valve is fixed no jucntion coupling effect, only Poisson coupling pipe breathing
TANK
PIPE
Pipe properties: L = 20 m, R = 398.5 mm, e = 8 mm, E = 210 GPa, = 0.3, s = 7900 kg/m3
Inital flow direction
VALVE
Initial conditions: v = 1 m/s, p = 0 Pa, f = 1000 kg/m3
Measuring point
1D-piping-FSI
Another example (with and without FSI) Tank-straight pipe-valve system:

P re s s ure his tory ne a r the va lve - de ta il
1.5
no FSI with FSI
Pre s s ure his tory ne a r the va lve

3
2.5
1
no FSI with FSI
P res s ure [MP a]
P res s ure [MP a]
0.5
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-1
-1.5
-1.5
0.05
0.1
0.15 -2
0.2
Time [s ]
-2.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Time [s ]
1D-piping-FSI
10
Fluid-structure interaction in 1D piping systems - Types of FSI

-There are several types of waves that characterize FSI: - axial, - flexural, - rotational, - radial and - torsional stress waves in the pipeline - pressure waves in the fluid. - According to the interaction between these waves one can differentiate the following types of the coupling: - Poisson coupling: pressure waves in the fluid are coupled with axial waves in the structure and changes of the pipe cross-section. Figurativelly known as pipe breathing - Junction coupling: different waves are appropriately coupled together at geometric changes (elbows, area changes, valves, junctions, etc.). - Friction coupling: axial waves in the structure are initiated due to the difference between fluid and structure velocity less important.
1D-piping-FSI 11

- Poisson coupling leads to precursor waves - these are stress wave induced disturbances in the liquid, which travel faster than and hence ahead of, the classical waterhammer waves. - The interaction is always caused by dynamic forces which act simultaneously on fluid and pipe. It is convenient to classify the dynamic forces into two groups: - distributed forces (Poisson and friction coupling) - local forces (junction coupling)
1D-piping-FSI 12

- Classification according to the fact whether the fluid knows for pipe deformations or not: - One-way coupling or uncoupled calculation (fluid transient is evaluated in undeformed structure). Most of the FSI analyses in the past in fluid-filled systems comprised two separate analyses undertaken sequentially (uncoupled calculation). Fluid-transient code is used to determine pressure and velocity histories in rigid and anchored structure, which are used as input to a structural dynamics code. It is also possible to couple codes in each calculation time step (one-way coupling). The results are identical in both cases. - Two-way coupling - most recent FSI methods, where FSI is defined with mathematical model or where two computer codes are coupled successively in such way, that the fluid code takes into account also deformations of the structure (Abaqus-Fluent, AnsysCFX, etc).
1D-piping-FSI 13

Pre s s ure his tory ne a r the va lve - de ta il
2
no FSI with FSI
-Time-domain and frequency-domain analyses - Typical outcome of a time-domain analysis is a series of graphs showing how parameters vary in time. - Typical outcome of a frequencydomain analysis is a series of graphs highlighting the dominant frequencies in the response of various parameters. - Mathematically, time-domain and frequency-domain analyses contain the same information. It is possible, for example, to obtain frequency-domain results from a Fourier analysis of the output from a time-domain analysis. Inversely not always true.
1D-piping-FSI
1.5
P res s ure [MP a]
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Time [s ]
14
Fluid-structure interaction in 1D piping systems 1D models

- Skalaks basic 4 equation model axial movement:
Set of four linear first-order PDEs:
- no two-phase flow - no damping - no friction - no convective term - no ...
fluid:
v p f + =0 t s
v 2 N x 1 2R p + 1 2 + = 0 K Ed EAt t s t
pipe:
Qy & u x N x = t At Rp t s
& R p u x 1 N x =0 EAt t Ed t s
Poisson coupling
Junction coupling relations pipe end Constant pressure (tank), rigidly anchored structure: Closed pipe, free structure: Closed pipe, free structure, rod impact:
p = const. , u z = 0
v = u z , A f p = At
1D-piping-FSI
z
, Qy =0 , M x =0
15
z
v = u z , A f p Y rod u z v 0, rod = At

- Valve closure transient
TANK PIPE
Pipe properties: L = 20 m, R = 398.5 mm, e = 8 mm, E = 210 GPa, = 0.3, s = 7900 kg/m3
Inital flow direction
VALVE
Initial conditions: v = 1 m/s, p = 0 Pa, f = 1000 kg/m3
Pressure near the valve: Left: Right:

2
Measuring point
valve fixed valve free
1.5
Ca s e 1, with FSI (s oft pipe ) Ca s e 5, no FSI (s tiff pipe )

1.5
Ca s e 4, with FSI (s oft pipe ) Ca s e 5, no FSI (s tiff pipe )
P res s ure [MP a]
0.5
P res s ure [MP a]

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-1
-1.5 0
Time [s ]
1D-piping-FSI
-1.5 0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Time [s ]
16
0.2

- Rod impact experiment
- The experiment performed at University of Dundee -The experimental apparatus is relatively simple: - no initial flow influence - no initial deformation - no influence of supports - no valve closing time effect.
2.5 Expe rime nt Ca lcula tion Ga le Ca lcula tion Tijs s e ling 2 1.5 Expe rime nt Ca lcula tion Ga le Ca lcula tion Tijs s e ling
2.5 2 1.5
P re s s ure right [MP a]
1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 0
P re s s ure le ft [MP a]
1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
-2 0.025 1D-piping-FSI 0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
170.025
Time [s ]
Time [s ]

- Valentins 8 equation model axial, rotational and flexural movement for plane pipelines with elbows - Skalaks model + Timoshenkos beam equations (from beam eq.)
( A +
t t
Af
& u y t
Qy s
=0
& 1 Qy u y & = - z 2 s GAt t

& 1 M z z =0 EI t t s
& z M z t I t t s
= Qy
A f , 1 v1 u z , 1 = A f , 2 v 2 u z , 2 Junction coupling relations elbow p1 = p2 , u z , 1 = u y , 2 A f , 1 p1 At , 1 z , 1 = Q y , 2 Singular coupling! A f , 2 p2 At , 2 z , 2 = Q y , 1 (straight sections) 1D-piping-FSI z , 2 , uy ,1 = u x ,1 = x ,2 , M x ,1 = M x ,2
18

- The experiment performed at University of Dundee -The experimental apparatus is relatively simple : - no initial flow influence - no initial deformation - no influence of supports - no valve closing time effect.
2.5e+006 2e+006 1.5e+006 1e+006 500000 Calculation Experiment
2e+006
1.5e+006 1e+006 500000 0 -500000 -1e+006
Calculation Experiment
0 -500000 -1e+006 -1.5e+006 -2e+006
1.5e+006 -2e+006 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
0.02
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
1D-piping-FSI
19

- Valentins 8 equation model smoth model
v p + =0 f t s t At
t t 2 Rp 2 N x 1 2R 2 p K + Ed 1 t - EA t + 2 2 R t
Qy & u x N x = t s Rp
f
& (1 2 ) u y R 2 v 1 1 = 2 Rp R p s & uy & 1 N x R p u x = EAt t Ed t s Rp & & u 1 Qy u y & = - x - z 2 s Rp GAt t & 1 M z z =0 EI t t s
( A +
t I t
Af
& u y t
Qy s
Af p - N x Rp
& z M z t s
= Qy
Where Rp is curvature radius of the pipe Junction coupling relations elbow

1D-piping-FSI 20

Comparison between singular and smoth coupling - pressure

Pre s s ure at impac t e nd
2500 2000 1500 2000 1500 1000
Pre s s ure at re mo te e nd
P res s ure [kP a ]
P res s ure [kP a ]

0 0.005 0.01 0.015
1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000
500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000
Time [s ]
0.02 0 1D-piping-FSI
0.005
0.01
0.015
Time [s ]
21
0.02

- Valve closure single elbow pipe
Valve is free
VALVE
P1
(multiplication fact. for deformations is 50)
PIPE 2 ELBOW
TANK
PIPE 1
=0 .3 9 = 85 m 0.3 , e , =8 t = 7 9 mm, 00 E kg = 2 /m 3 10
GP a
Valve is fixed
L1 = 5 m, R = 0.3985 m, e = 8 mm, E = 210 GPa = 0.3, t = 7900 kg/m3,
Valve closure, initial pressure in the pipe is zero, fluid velocity v = 1 m/s
1D-piping-FSI
L, 2 R
22

- Valve closure Tank-pipe-valve system, pipe is arbitrary
De fo rmatio ns at t =0.0000 s
0.6 Initia l De forme d
0.4
Valve is free
0.2
Width [m]
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Length [m]
Valve closure, initial pressure in the pipe is zero, fluid velocity v = 1 m/s
1D-piping-FSI
23

- Wiggerts 14 equations model 1D pipe in 3D space full coupling:
- additional equations for torsional motion - additional eqs. for x-z plane - radial deformations still not included (negligible)
1D-piping-FSI
24
Fluid-structure interaction in 1D piping systems numerical methods

Vectorial form of the equations valid for any system:
r r +B =0 A t z
C = A B
-1
r r +C =0 t z
The Jacobian matrix C has some very important properties: - it is analytically diagonalizable - the eigensystem is constant during the simulation due to the assumption of the single-phase flow and constant fluid density. These assumptions are generally not accurate! Consequence: -The model is suitable for numerical solutions with Method of Characteristics (MOC) MOC is most common method, other methods are mixed MOCFEM procedure, component synthesis method, and Godunovs method (WAHA).
1D-piping-FSI
Characteristic lines processor demanding with increasing time
25

Two phase flow modelling (void generally reduces FSI effect): - MOC: column separation concentrated cavity model (Bergant)
- predicts most of the cavitation situations (in cold water inertially controlled cavitation) - simple model to implement - Cavitation starts when pressure falls below sat. pressure the cavity volume Vc is evaluated using:
Vc,old = Vc,new + Af (uf,right uf,left) t
- pressure in the cavity fixed at saturation - Condensation - when overpressure wave transverses a cavity, first it has to cause the cavity to collapse. The delay action associated with this behavior emulates the reduction of fluid wave speed and its dependency on the void fraction
- Godunov method: near future, coupling of Valentine's 8 equation model with WAHA code the result will be two-phase flow FSI coupling - Coupling of two codes using best market codes + coupling at fluidstructure interface (Newtons law)
1D-piping-FSI 26

Two-Phase Flow Modelling Seminar

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Two-Phase Flow Modelling Seminar

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Technical University of Catalonia and Heat and Mass Transfer Technological Center, 2006

Two-phase flow modelling 1) Introduction

Iztok Tiselj "Joef Stefan Institute, Slovenia

Two-phase flow modelling 2) Basic equations of two-phase flow

Iztok Tiselj "Joef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Basic equations of two-phase flow