NUREG/IA-0133

CAMP004

International

Agreement Report

Development, Implementation,

and Assessment of Specific

Closure Laws for

Inverted-Annular Film-Boiling

in a Two-Fluid Model

Prepared by

Francois de Cachard

Thermal-Hydraulics Laboratory

Paul Scherrer Institute

CH-5232 Villigen PSI

Switzerland

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

October 1996

Prepared as part of

The Agreement on Research Participation and TIchnical Exchange

under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment

and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Published by

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
AVAILABILITY NOTICE

Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications

Most documents cited In NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.. Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555-0001

2. The Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office, P. 0. Box 37082, Washington, DC

20402-9328

3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161-0002

Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for Inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room

include NRC correspondence and Internal NRC memoranda: NRC bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; licensee event reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission

papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.

The following documents In the NUREG series are available for purchase from the Government Printing Office:

formal NRC staff and contractor reports. NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, international agreement

reports, grantee reports, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are regulatory guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations. and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG-series reports and technical reports prepared by other Federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission,

forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books,

journal articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and congressional

reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free. to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Office

of Administration, Distribution and Mali Services Section. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555-0001.

Copies of Industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, Two White Flint North. 11545 Rockville Pike. Rockvllle, MD 20852-2738, for use by

the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards. from the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018-3308.

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

This report was prepared under an international cooperative agreement for the exchange of technical information. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any

warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the

results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report, or represents

that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.
NUREG/IA-0133 CAMP004

International

Agreement Report

Development, Implementation,

and Assessment of Specific

Closure Laws for

Inverted-Annular Film-Boiling

in a Two-Fluid Model

Prepared by

Francois de Cachard

Thermal-Hydraulics Laboratory

Paul Scherrer Institute

CH-5232 Villigen PSI

Switzerland

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

October 1996

Prepared as part of

The Agreement on Research Particpation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment

and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Published by

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Contents

1 Abstract 3

2 Analytical modeling of Inverted-annular film-boiling 4

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Basic equations ......................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Closure relationships ........................................................................................................... 5

2.3.1 Vapour film .............................................................................................................. 7

2.3.2 Liquid core .............................................................................................................. 9

2.4 Im plem entation ...................................................................................................................... 12

2.5 Semi-empirical description of interfacial disturbance effects ........................................... 12

2.5.1 Needs .......................................................................................................................... 12

2.5.2 Physical background ............................................................................................ 12

2.5.3 IAFB-specific correlations ..................................................................................... 16

3 Processing of experimental data 21

3.1 NEPTUN data ........................................................................................................................ 21

3.1.1 Experim ental conditions ....................................................................................... 21

3.1.2 Interpolation m ethod ............................................................................................. 22

3.1.3 Conditions at the quench front .............................................................................. 22

3.2 UC-Berkely data ................................................................................................................. 23

3.3 University of Ottawa data .................................................................................................. 24

3.4 UKAEA-W infrith data ....................................................................................................... 24

4 Model assessment and conclusions 24

4.1 Im portance of the initial conditions ................................................................................ 25

4.2 Results ................................................................................................................................... 25

4.3 Prominent effects and physical variables in IAFB .......................................................... 29

4.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 36

A Nomenclature 38

B Acknowledgements 40

C References 40

D Annex 43

1 Abstract

Inverted-Annular Film-Boiling (IAFB) is one of the post-burnout heat transfer modes taking place, in

particular, during the reflooding phase of the loss-of-coolant accident, when the liquid at the quench

front is subcooled. Under IAFB conditions, a continuous liquid core is separated from the wall by a

superheated vapour film.

The heat transfer rate in IAFB is influenced by the flooding rate, liquid subcooling, pressure, and the

wall geometry and temperature. These influences can be accounted by a two-fluid model with physically

sound closure laws for mass, momentum and heat transfers between the wall, the vapour film, the vapourliquid interface, and the liquid core. The applicability of existing IAFB two-fluid models is limited. This

is attributed to shortcomings in the description of heat transfer within the liquid core, to the use of

certain correlations outside their validity range, and to a limited use of experimental information on

IAFB. The usual approach has been to develop models employing generally applicable closure laws

including, however, adjustable parameters, and to adjust these using global experimental results. The

present approach has been to develop IAFB-specific closure laws in such a form that they could be

adjusted separately using detailed, IAFB-relevant, experimental results. Steady-state results, including

heat flux, wall temperature and void fraction data have been used for the adjustment.

A key issue in IAFB modeling is to predict how the heat flux reaching the vapour-liquid interface is

split into a liquid heating term and a vaporization term. In the model proposed, convective liquid

heating is related to the liquid velocity relative to the interface, and not to the absolute liquid velocity,

as in previous models. This relative velocity is deduced from the interfacial shear stress, using the

liquid-interface friction law. With this modification, the prediction of the experimental trends is greatly

improved.

The non-smoothness of the vapour-liquid interface may considerably enhance interfacial transfers. Complex physical processes are involved, such as waves, oscillations of the liquid core, droplet entrainment

and redeposition, and turbulence in the vapour film. In the closure laws proposed, these effects are

accounted by semi-empirical laws based on simple physical models. The vapour film is divided into a

laminar sublayer near the wall which controls heat transfer, and a well-mixed sublayer near the interface.

The ratio of the laminar sublayer thickness to the total film thickness has been empirically correlated.

Semi-empirical expressions have also been developed for the vapour and liquid friction factors. The

main correlating variable used is a non-dimensional film thickness, which is shown to be representative

of the degree of irregularity of the interface, and may be easily derived from void fraction measurements.

Three possible geometries of the liquid core are considered: flow in a tube, and in square- or triangularlattice rod bundles. Heat transfer within the liquid core is deduced from momentum transfer using the

Chilton-Colburn analogy.

The model is extensively assessed against forced flow, low quality post-dryout data from four independent

sources. A total of 52 experiments have been analysed. The quench front velocity, the initial flow

parameters just downstream from the quench front, and the wall temperature distribution in the dry

region are carefully derived from the measurements and given as inputs to the model. The model

then predicts the heat flux and void fraction distributions, which are compared with the experimental

values. The overall predictions are good. The model is shown to apply to steady-state as well as

to transient (reflooding) conditions, with very different geometries, i.e. tubes and rod bundles with

hydraulic diameters ranging from 4 to 14 mm, and for large parameter ranges, i.e. 3 to 50 cm/s in

flooding rate, 0 to 30 0C in subcooling, 1 to 4 bar in pressure, and 300 to 1000 0C in wall temperature.

The IAFB-specific closure laws proposed have also intrinsic value, and may be used in other two-fluid

models. They should allow to improve the description of post-dryout, low quality heat transfer by the

safety codes.

3
2 Analytical modeling of inverted-annular film-boiling

2.1 Introduction

Inverted-annular film-boiling (IAFB) is one of the modes of post-burnout heat transfer taking place in

a number of situations and in particular during the reflooding phase of the Loss-of-Coolant Accident

(LOCA).

IAFB takes place when the liquid at the quench front is subcooled. A thin vapour film develops on

the wall, starting at the location of the quench front. Heat is transferred from the wall to the vapour

and superheats it. The superheated vapour transfers heat to the vapour-liquid interface, where some

vaporization takes place. The vapour generated at the interface thickens the vapour film and tends to

decrease the rate of heat transfer.

IAFB resembles film boiling in a pool but only superficially. Indeed, the important influences of liquid

flow and subcooling are absent in pool boiling of a saturated liquid. Thus, attempts to use classical

film boiling correlations for modeling IAFB situations are in general not successful. On the contrary,

approaches based on two-fluid modeling have shown promise (e.g. Chan & Yadigaroglu, 1980; Denham,

1983; Kawaji, 1984; Analytis & Yadigaroglu, 1987; Takenaka et al., 1989).

The work described here follows the general lines of the model of Analytis & Yadigaroglu (1987). Its

purpose is to generalize it and make it applicable to both tubes and bundles; to remove certain global,

purely empirical correction factors that were used previously, as well as correlations that were applied

outside their validity range, to further test and verify the model against data from tubes and bundles of

different geometries (square and triangular lattices) and hydraulic diameters. Thus, certain closure laws

in the model were modified to improve the physical representation of the phenomena. In particular, the

formulation of the heat and momentum transfers within the liquid core has been changed, and IAFB

specific, physically consistent correlations have been developed, using carefully checked, IAFB relevant,

experimental data.

In a reflooding situation, the quench front progresses slowly along the bundle. Seen in a frame of

reference moving with the quench front, the phenomena change very slowly. Thus, to easily test the

model and to confront it to a large number of ixperimental data without having to use a large two-fluid

code (such as the ones used for system analysis), a quasi-steady state approach and simple, ad-hoc

two-fluid code were used: the equations are written, and both the calculations and the data reduction

are performed in a frame of reference moving with the quench front. This, however, does not at all

preclude a fully dynamic implementation of such a model in a two-fluid code; this indeed has already

been done using a previous version of the model (Analytis, 1990). On the contrary, with the quasisteady-state approach used here, one can investigate in great detail the influence of certain closure laws

and assumptions and perform very detailed comparisons to the available experimental data.

2.2 Basic equations

The conservation equations already used by Analytis & Yadigaroglu (1987) are also used here. These

are the steady-state equations for mass, momentum and energy conservation for the liquid core and the

vapour film, considered in a frame of reference moving with the quench front. The flow is assumed to

be vertically upwards. Ul and U, are the liquid and vapor velocities in the moving frame of reference.

d _ ____ ,[PIalU11 -= (1)

d ____

- A (2)

-a Lp - al P1 U = a A A M,(U-U) (3)

dz 'dz = 1 "A A

4
- -I :) dp 7 ,- - p uul • ) , dU,, W _.(4), -' p , 1 - a ) P, + • . ,+,,,.-r,) ( 4 ) dzA A A

U1 d71 d Q& ,M,,.p(h_ - hi) (5)

dz -c;a paA c,. pi A

(I - al)U. d t ]. eh + M,,p(h,. - h) (6)

=1a)U + +p+-" +

77 c13, p, A ppA

where M.ap denotes the vaporization mass flowrate (per unit height), Ti and r. the interfacial and

wall shear stress, respectively, and Qak and Q~h the liquid and vapour sensible heating rates (per unit

height), respectively.

For a cylindrical tube of radius R, the relation between the liquid fraction al and the film thickness 6 is

= [(R-6)]2 (7) R

while, for a square lattice rod bundle,

P 2 _ i(R + 6)2(8

Gj = p2 _ = 2 (8)

and for a triangular lattice rod bundle,

= (vi//2)p2 - ir(R + 6)2 (9) (V3-/2)p - irR2

R is the rod diameter and p is the bundle pitch.

The interfacial perimeter Pi and the flow area A are given for a tube by

P8 = 2,r(R-6) (10)

A=*R 2 (1=)

and for a bundle by

PS = 2v (R+6) (12)

A = p2 - rR 2 (square lattice) (13)

A = (Vf3/2)p2 - rR 2 (triangular lattice) (14)

The wall perimeter is

P. =21rR (15)

in both cases.

The remaining quantities, namely Me.p, Ui, Ti, r,,, Qah and Q~h are expressed by the closure relationships given below.

2.3 Closure relationships

The various components of the heat and momentum transfers are represented in figure 1, together with

the velocity profile.

The interfacial velocity U, is implicity obtained by writing the interface equilibrium condition:

r,+ = r. (16)

where T',j and rj are the interfacial shear stress expressions on the vapour side and on the liquid side,

respectively.

5
Wall Vapour Liquid

Qrx

T '

I I

II

Vqr -=4 Vqt

Figure 1: Velocity profile in "ideal" IAFB; momentum and heat transfers.

In fact, the velocity profile is often strongly disturbed by some fluctuations of the vapour-liquid interface.

The vapour interfacial mass flowrate is given by

M~aP =Q1'-P(17)

where the vaporization heat rate Q,. is obtained from a heat balance for the interface, expressing the

fact that the fraction of the heat rate from the wall and the vapour to the interface, that is not used to

heat up the liquid, goes into vapor generation:

Q .- = Qi + Qt - Q 'h (18)

6
where Q,i and Q, are the heat transfer rates from the vapour to the interface and the radiation heat

transfer rate (per unit height), respectively.

The vapour sensible heating rate is given by the following balance

Q,• = QWV - Qv, (19)

where Q,, is the heat transfer rate from the wall to the vapour (per unit height).

Expressions for Q.,,,, Qvi, Qr, Quh, i,, ri and rij are provided by an analysis of the beat and momentum

transfers in the vapour film and in the liquid core.

2.3.1 Vapour film

The vapour field is treated as a flow between two parallel plates, i.e., the wall and the liquid interface.

The wall shear stress is expressed by

,W ---f. N, IUv + V, yl (U. + Vqf) (20)

2

where Vlj is the quench front velocity. Indeed, the wall velocity relative to the moving frame is -Vq1 .

The following expressions are used for the friction factor

24 f, -- for Rew < 2000 (21)

and 0.085 = 0.85 for Re, > 2000 (22)

The Reynolds number is defined by

Re. = p. IU, + V,, (23)

Although it is often acknowledged that the flow regime in the vapour film is turbulent even for low

Reynolds numbers (Kao et al., 1972; Suryanarayana & Merte, 1972; Kawaji, 1984; Takenaka et al.,

1989), the use of the usual turbulent flow correlations at low Reynolds numbers (often below 100) is

questionable, since these correlations lead to unreasonably low values when extrapolated outside their

intended range. Therefore, the turbulent flow friction law in the original model has been replaced by

relations 21 and 22.

Similarly, the interfacial shear stress is expressed by

• = P ., IU - Uil (U, - UO) (24) 2

where U, is the interface velocity in the moving frame of reference,

with 24 f, = A 4(25)

and

Re.i = p" IUv -_ UI 26 (26) PV

A1, is a factor accounting for the enhancement of the momentum transfer from the vapour to the

interface, due to interfacial disturbances and turbulence. The derivation of A\I, as well as of the similar

7
quantities Ah. (equation 36) and At (equation 51) introduced later is a key point of the present study.

It is described in details in section 2.5. The expression proposed for Ap, is

A,. = C,(6"*)" (27)

c, = 0.0362 (28)

c2 = 1.96 (29)

where 6* is a non-dimensional film thickness defined by

6* A 6 (P (PPV ')g)L (30) "V

whose introduction is also justified in section 2.5.

When 6* is small, a minimal value A/, = 1 is used.

As turbulence effects on the interfacial shear stress are included in the factor Af, equation 25 is used

whithout restriction on the Reynolds number range.

The error made by not accounting for the cylindrical geometry (parallel plates) may be estimated, for

laminar flow, from Shigechi & Lee (1991). In cylindrical geometry, the inner and the outer shear stress

differ by 1.8 % for a surface area ratio (void fraction) of 10 %, and by 12% for a surface area ratio of

50%. The assumption of parallel plates is thus acceptable.

As in Kawaji (1984), Kays' (1980) formalism is applied to the heat transfer in the vapour film.

Again, the approximation of parallel plates is made. The exchange perimeter is considered to be

(P. + Pi)/2 (mean perimeter). The resulting expressions of the heat transfer rates (per unit height)

Q.. and Q,, from the wall to the vapour and from the vapour to the interface are

QWV k, kNu. P. +/P (T. -TO) (31)

26 2 1+(-'-)e

Q~i = k /Nu. P. +/P (T. - T.) (32)

26 2 1 + (-.) e (2

where Nu. is the vapour Nusselt number, 0 the influence coefficient and T, the vapour-liquid interface

temperature, assumed to be the saturation temperature. This formulation has been modified to account for the heat transfer enhancement, due to interfacial disturbances and turbulence. The following

expressions are proposed:

Q. k Nu,, P. + Pi (T. - Tv)_ (33) = : 26 2 1+(-9xLe (

Qvi = Ah. k. Nu. P. +Pi (V - T.) (34)

= A, 26 2 1 + (R-.)e(4

(35)

where Ay, is a factor given by

Ah, = cA(6") 4(36)

c3 = 0.679 (37)

C4 = 0.509 (38)

(when 6 is small, a minimal value Ah. = 1 is used) and V, is the mean vapour temperature in a

postulated wall sublayer (df. section 2.5), and is given by

is TT, + (At. - 1)(Th - Tht (39)

The vapour thermal conductivity k, is evaluated at 7T, (the other physical properties are taken at T.).

8
Equations 33 and 34 are solved for Q,, and Q,,, giving

Q. = h. 26(1k- N. . P [(T. - r -em-T.)l T) (40)

Q = A k, Nu, P. + PM

e26(1-02) 2 T.)-e(T -Tu)] (41)

For laminar flow and constant beat rate, Nu and 0 are given by (Kays, 1980)

Nu, = 5.385 (42)

0 = 0.346 (43)

which we use without restriction on the Reynolds number range, turbulence effects being included in

the factor Ahu.

The error made by not accounting for the cylindrical geometry (parallel plates) may be estimated from

a pure conduction calculation. For a film thickness-to-radius ratio of 1/3, i.e. a void fraction of 56 %,

the relative error on the heat transfer rate is only 1 %.

For a tube, the radiation heat transfer rate is given by

Q- =T (, 7.) (44)

and for a bundle by

q=-L + 9L -

The radiation absorption in the vapour film is neglected. A value e f 0.96 is used for the water

emittance (assumed to be equal to the absorbance), according to Eckert's recommendation for 0.1 mm

or more thick water (in Rohsenow & Hartnett, 1973, pp. 15-23). For the wall emittance, the values

recommended in the experimental data sources analysed are used. For Inconel 600, by default, the

following relation is used:

1= .979 10-4 T 0.5735 (46)

where T,, is expressed in Kelvin.

It is a linear approximation, between 580 K and 1260 K, of the values recommended by Kawaji (1984,

pp. 31), based on a report from 7%e International Nickel Company, Inc.

2.3.2 Liquid core

Proper modeling of the heat and momentum transfers from the vapour-liquid interface to the bulk of the

liquid is of primary importance, as it describes how the wall heat flux is separated into a liquid heating

term and a vaporization term. The approach here differs from the original model formulation, in that we

consider, as the reference velocity for the transfers, the liquid velocity relative to the interface U1 - Ui,

instead of U, (figure 1). This requires use of one more closure equation, which is the liquid-interface

friction law. Notice that Uj - U/ is negative, as the vapour velocity is greater than the liquid velocity.

The liquid Reynolds number relative to the interface is defined as

Reli = pi I U1 - U, bl L(47)

where D11 denotes the hydraulic diameter of the liquid column.

9
Specific friction and heat transfer laws are used depending on the liquid core geometry. For inverted

annular flow in a tube, the liquid flow relative to the interface is assumed to be equivalent to flow in

a tube (radius R - 6). For inverted annular flow in a rod bundle, the liquid flow is assumed to be

equivalent to flow in a rod bundle (pitch p, rod radius R + 6).

The interfacial shear stress is given by

2 (48)

with different expressions for the friction factor fl, depending on the geometry and on the flow regime.

For laminar flow in a tube, we use

ft = A 16 (49)

while for turbulent flow,

f = 0 0-079 (50)

where At is a factor given by

Dh)(1

At = cs(1+c+ -) (51) z

es = 4.18 (52)

cs = 0.7 (53)

and accounting for the enhancement of the transfers from the interface to the liquid, in particular due

to interfacial disturbances, and for entrance length effects (section 2.5). When z is small, a maximal

value At = 10 is used.

For a rod bundle, we use the results of Cheng and Todreas (in Todreas & Kazimi, 1989), which depend

on the flow regime and the bundle geometry. The friction factor is given by

At z= (54)

with

4 = + - 1) + 1)2(55)

and

= 2 (R + 6) (56)

Values of the coefficients n, a, b and c, valid for pitch-to-diameter ratios between 1.1 and 1.5, are

presented in table 1. A, is the IAFB-specific factor given by equations 51 to 53.

Flow regime laminar turbulent

Lattice square triangular square triangular

n 1 0.18

a 35.55 62.97 0.1339 0.1458

b 263.7 216.9 0.09059 0.03632

c -190.2 -190.2 -0.09926 -0.03333

Table 1: Coefficients in equations 54 and 55.

The liquid-to-interface friction factor is corrected for the influence of temperature dependent properties;

this correction may be significant for high liquid subcooling. Denoting by f, the value given by the

above equations and flc the corrected value, the following relations are used (Kays, 1980).

10
For laminar flow:

=1e = f, o'sr (57) P1

and for turbulent flow:

fie = f ( o8)0.25 (58)

P1

where p, is the liquid viscosity at the saturation temperature T, and pi the liquid viscosity at the mean

liquid temperature T'.

The largest of the laminar or turbulent values of the friction coefficient is used. In practice, laminar flow

is only predicted over very short lengths near the quench front: from some fractions of a millimeter for

the largest hydraulic diameters in our data bank (about 14 mm), to some millimeters for the smallest

(4mm).

The heat transfer from the interface at T, to the bulk of the liquid is expressed by

Q1, = h P(T - T) (59)

where T' is the bulk liquid temperature and hi the liquid-interface heat transfer coefficient.

For laminar flow, the liquid-interface Nusselt number

Nut Ah Dh60)

for a tube at constant surface temperature is given by

Nut = 3.66 (61)

In a rod bundle, the results of Sparrow & Loeffler (in Todreas & Kazimi, 1989), based on constant axial

heat flux, are used. For uniform circumferential temperature and a pitch-to-diameter ratio of 1.13,

Nut = 6.0 (62)

For a pitch-to-diameter ratio of 1.33,

Nut = 9.4' (63)

As these values correspond to a constant axial heat flux boundary condition and the modeled situation

is for a constant (saturation) axial temperature, in an attempt to correct them, they are multiplied by

the ratio

Nut (64)

Nu,

where Nut and Nuf are the constant temperature and constant heat flux Nusselt numbers in a tube:

Nut = 3.66 (65)

Nuj = 4.364 (66)

The laminar heat transfer coefficient is also corrected for the influence of temperature dependent properties according to Kays (1980). The corrected value is

ht. = h, (E)-0.14 (67)

P1

Finally, to account for interfacial disturbance effects, the same factor As as for the friction coefficient is

applied to hAe.

11
For turbulent flow, the liquid-interface heat transfer coefficient is deduced from the interfacial shear

stress through the Chilton-Colburn analogy:

i ICp1 U, (68)

=IsU - Ul , Pr2/3

The enhancement factor )q is implicitely applied to h, through r.. Again, the largest of the two values

of the heat transfer coefficient for laminar or turbulent flow is used.

2.4 Implementation

The initial values of the variables p, U,, U1 , ca, T, and T, at the quench front, the quench front velocity,

and the wall temperature distribution in the dry region are given as input to the calculations. Equations

1 to 6, together with the closure laws 7 to 68 are solved by a standard Runge-Kutta method. As the

computed variables may vary strongly near the quench front, a very small initial step (10-10 m) is used.

This step is then exponentially increased.

The results allow us to derive the distribution of the wall heat flux, given by

q, = Q = Qu,- Q, (69)

. PW

and of a heat transfer coefficient defined by

h q A (70) TI, - T.

where T, is the saturation temperature.

2.5 Semi-empirical description of interfacial disturbance effects

2.5.1 Needs

Numerous reported observations of IAFB (De Jarlais & Ishii, 1985; Kawaji et al., 1985; Costigan &

Wade, 1984; Edelman et al., 1983) indicate that the vapour-liquid interface is irregular. In addition,

liquid droplets may be entrained in the vapour film, as well as vapour bubbles in the liquid core. It is

generally agreed that the interfacial disturbances should increase the wall heat flux by locally thinning

the vapour film and lowering the vapour temperature. The vapour-liquid momentum and heat transfer

should also be enhanced, due to the hydrodynamic drag of interfacial waves, to the enlargement of the

transfer area, and to the transfers between the vapour and liquid droplets. The interfacial disturbances

also promote the appearance of turbulence in the vapour film, which further enhances heat and mass

transfer. Finally, the interface-liquid bulk heat and momentum transfers should also be increased, due

to roughness effects. The true boundary condition, i.e. a fluid-fluid instead of fluid-wall interface, should

also play a role in that it affects the turbulence structure near the interface (e.g., Rashidi & al., 1991).

The way interfacial disturbance effects were accounted for in the original model is shown below to

present some shortcomings. A new formulation of the momentum and heat transfer enhancements due

to interfacial disturbances has since been developed and included in the IAFB model.

2.5.2 Physical background

The physical processes involved in heat and momentum transfer enhancement, i.e. waves, oscillations

of the whole liquid core, droplet entrainment and redeposition, and turbulence, are very complex. As

their modeling only represents one part of the IAFB model, which is in other respects already complex,

12
any attempt of a fully analytical description of these effects seems hopeless. Therefore, these effects are

accounted for in a global, semi-empirical manner. Four physical processes are specifically adressed, i.e.

the momentum and heat transfers in the vapour and the liquid.

On the vapour side, a first enhancement factor Af. is applied to the vapour-interface momentum

transfer (equation 25). It accounts for the hydrodynamic drag of interfacial waves, the equivalent

roughness effect of ripples, and the momentum transfer between the vapour and liquid droplets. This

factor will be correlated empirically.

The vapour film heat transfer description is modified, based on the following simple considerations

and assumptions. The effective thermal conductivity in the vapour film may be much higher near the

vapour-liquid interface than near the wall, due to interfacial waves, entrained droplets and turbulence.

The temperature profile is then almost fiat near the interface, and steep near the wall. The film is

arbitrarily split into two sublayers (figure 2).

Wall Vapour Liquid

Tw

TvT'

Ts

Qvh)

Q wvQV1 QVI

8'

Figure 2: Film heat transfer model.

Near the interface, the vapour temperature is assumed to be uniform and equal to the saturation

temperature. Near the wall, a laminar sublayer of thickness 6' is assumed to control heat transfer. The

heat rates entering and leaving this sublayer are then given by (section 2.2, equations 31 and 32)

- k.Nu. Pw +PA (T.-TT,) 26' 2-)

= k.Nu, Pw+Pi (V,-T,)

26' 2

where 7,' denotes the mean vapour temperature in the wall sublayer.

(71)

(72)

13
Introducing the factor AA, defined as

A 6 (73)

where 6 is the total film thickness, equations 71 and 72 become

.= A Nu.P.+ Pi (T.-7,)(74) 26 2 1+.(-zL) ()

Q = A kNu. P. + P, - T.)

26 2 1+(qa.,)e (75)

Neglecting the vapour film curvature and the velocity profile effects, T. (the mean bulk vapour temperature used in the 6 equation model), T' , T, (the saturation temperature), 6 and 6' are related by

6' (6-6') T. (76)

or

T "T + (A. - 1)(T1 - TO (77)

The factor Al,, will be correlated empirically.

The simple model proposed does not attempt a rigorous description of the heat transfer in the vapour

film. It only provides a basis for a correlation.

It should be pointed out that, for realistic values of the variables involved, the predicted wall and interfacial heat transfer rates Q., and Qi are very close, and about equal to the pure conduction heat

transfer rate through a vapour film of thickness 6, enhanced by a factor Ahk. This is due to the low

thermal capacity of the vapour film. Nevertheless, the use of equations 74, 75 and 77, rather than of a

single conduction equation presents a major advantage. It allows to keep the frame of a full 6-equation

model, whereas a single conduction equation would have fixed the vapour temperature at the average

value between wall and saturation temperatures, making the vapour energy conservation equation obsolete. Moreover, the proposed model may predict a much lower value of the vapour temperature than the

average between wall and saturation, which is realistic and significant, in that it influences the values

of the steam physical properties.

As, according to the present model, the heat transfer is controlled by the wall sublayer, the vapour

thermal conductivity k,, is evaluated at the temperature 7,, whereas the vapour physical properties

which are involved in the hydrodynamic equations, i.e. density and viscosity, are evaluated at the mean

bulk temperature T,.

The expressions for the Af, and AX, factors, which characterize the momentum and heat transfer

enhancement in the vapour film, have to rely on experimental data. Correlations have to be developed,

which should, to the extent possible, involve the determining physical variables.

In the original model, the following enhancement factor,

A = 1 + 150 (6/R) (78)

where 6 denotes the film thickness and R the tube diameter, was applied to both the vapour-interface

heat and momentum transfers. This correlation due to Wallis (1970) has also been applied to IAFB

by Fung & Groeneveld (1981). However, it has originally been developed for the friction coefficient

between the gas core and the gas-liquid interface in annular flow, which is quite a different situation.

The correlating variable b/R itself seems inadequate for IAFB in general. For example, this variable

looses its significance in the ideal, limiting case of film boiling along a vertical fiat plate, whereas the

transfer enhancement mechanisms are still present in this case.

Another shortcoming of the original model is that the enhancement factor A was only applied to the

vapour-interface heat flux, and not to the wall-vapour heat flux. The wall heat flux was only indirectly

modified, through the decrease in vapour temperature; as a consequence, for a given film thickness,

14
it could not be increased by a factor greater than two (a factor two would correspond to an infinite

value of the enhancement factor, and to a vapour temperature equal to the saturation temperature).

This is clearly shown by experimental values of the wall heat flux enhancement factor (figure 4) to be

insufficient.

The enhancement of the vapour-interface transfers may be attributed to two basic mechanisms, i.e.

turbulence and continuity waves. These two mechanisms, which are mutually dependent, appear to

be strongly related to the vapour Reynolds number. Evidence of the Reynolds number influence on

the development of continuity waves may be found in linear stability analyses as the one by Kao et

al. (1972). Shortly, inverted-annular flow (IAF) is always unstable with respect to long wavelengths

(for short wavelengths, surface tension acts as a restoring force), and the rate of growth of instabilities

strongly increases with the vapour Reynolds number.

The hydrodynamic stability of JAF is influenced by several other parameters than the vapour Reynolds

number. However, it seems reasonable to leave these effects aside in this study, which mostly concerns

the reflooding of nuclear reactor cores with water. The following qualitative justification may be given.

As long as the liquid is water in a relatively narrow temperature range (i.e. with relatively constant

physical properties), with a much larger hydraulic diameter than that of the vapour film and a much

lower velocity, the hydrodynamic boundary conditions for the vapour film remain more or less the same.

The vapour and interface hydrodynamics are thus largely specified by the vapour Reynolds number.

Thus, the vapour film Reynolds number appears to be a convenient correlating variable for Af, and

Ah,. Unfortunately, no vapour velocity measurements are available. A correlation based on the vapour

Reynolds number would then have to rely on a computed vapour velocity, which seems precarious for

further applications. Thus, use was made of a dimensionless film thickness, defined as follows:

6 [p (P. -) M (79)

The link between the vapour Reynolds number and the non-dimensional film thickness 6" appears by

considering the momentum conservation equations in the IAFB two-fluid model (equations 3 and 4). A

linear combination of these equations, with the factors (1 - at) and (-al) respectively, neglecting the

convective terms (which, according to the numerical results, is realistic, even with significant vaporization), gives

--• A P 4- oft % PW = 01(l - al)(Pt - pv)g (80)

Physically, relation 80 expresses that the vapour film buoyancy is entirely compensated by the wall and

interfacial friction forces.

Assuming laminar vapour flow, a liquid fraction close to 1, and a liquid velocity much lower than the

vapour velocity, and assimilating the vapour-liquid interface to a smooth wall, gives

A(81)

1-a, -A J (82)

24 U .3 (83)

where the vapour Reynolds number Re, is given by

RevA p. U. 26 (84)

Pw

Substituting Uv (equation 84) in equation 83 yields

i p 1_Re. (85)

Whith the above simplifications, equation 80 becomes

r= - 2(p 2POO (86)

15
Combining equations 85 and 86 produces

Re, = 6 (87)

which means that, under the assumptions made, 6 may replace Re as the correlating variable. Real

IAF approaches the "ideal" situation pictured by these assumptions near the quench front, and further

up if the liquid subcooling remains high (in this case, the wall heat flux is high and goes almost entirely

into the liquid core, the vapour film remaining thin). Indeed, very thin vapour films should remain

laminar, and, according to the reported observations, relatively smooth. Relation 87 is no longer valid

for very high flooding rates (of the order of 1 m/s or greater), where the liquid velocity may no longer

be neglected.

A similar analysis with a turbulent friction law (constant friction coefficient) leads to a vapour Reynolds

number proportional to (6")312. Thus, the physical effects attributed to the Reynolds number may

also be correlated with P if some turbulence is present. Finally, it has been checked that the relation

between Re, and 6" does not depend on the flow geometry (tube or rod bundle).

In summary, the quantity 6* appears as a physically suited correlating parameter for the vapour-interface

transfer enhancement during IAFB in reflooding situations.

A third enhancement factor, At, is applied to the interface-liquid momentum transfer (equations 49

to 54). As the heat transfer is deduced from the momentum transfer using the Chilton-Colburn analogy

(equation 68), it is also affected by this third coefficient.

The choice of correlating parameters for this factor is difficult. Indeed, the enhancement of the transfers

within the liquid core may be attributed to several distinct effects. There is an increase of the transfers

near the quench front due to the violent changes in the flow that take place there and cause a strong

mixing. This effect should decrease downstream due do the development of a velocity profile in the

liquid core. Therel is also a "roughness" effect due to the interfacial disturbances. This should increase

along the flow, as the film Reynolds number and the wave amplitudes increase.

In the original model, the entrance-length effect was approximately accounted by applying the following

enhancement factor,

F = 1 + 1.4 (R/z) (88)

to the interface-liquid heat transfer, where R. denotes the tube diameter and z the distance from the

quench front. This factor approximatively fits the thermal-entrance-length effect for turbulent flow in

a circular tube, for constant heat rate and a Prandtl number of the order of 0.7 (the Reynolds number

has little influence) (e.g., Kays, 1980, figs. 13-8 and 13-9, pp. 264 and 265).

Still in the original model, another enhancement factor was required (a constant value of 2.5 was used),

in some cases, in order to reach good agreement between the experimental and computed results. This

was attributed to the "roughness" effect.

R/z or, rather, D,/z (D,%: hydraulic diameter of the flow) seems a convenient correlating parameter

with regards to the entrance-length effect, whereas the "roughness" effect could be accounted by using

6/lDl.

2.5.3 IAFB-speciflc correlations

The enhancement factors Aj,, Ah, and At have been correlated using Fung's (University of Ottawa,

1981) experimental results. Fung obtained steady-state, post-dryout heat transfer data for vertical flow

of water inside electrically heated inconel tubes of about 12 mm inside diameter and 800 mm length.

The data were obtained using the "hot patch" technique in which an indirectly heated copper block

brazed onto the inlet of the test section supplies the critical heat flux. This hot patch stabilizes the

quench front upstream of the tube, which may then be operated in post-dryout, down to relatively low

heat fluxes and steam qualities. The wall temperature was measured at ten locations, and the heat

16
transfer rates were derived from these measurements, taking into account axial conduction and heat

losses. The void fraction was measured at five locations using 7-densitometry. The way input data for

the present IAFB model are obtained from Fung's data, is described in section 3, together with the

processing of data from other sources.

Fung's results constitute a particularly well suited data base for IAFB-specific correlations since many

of his experiments were performed in the IAFB-relevant parameter range (34 have been used for the

new correlations) and they also include void fraction measurements. In addition to specifying a meaningful variable all along the flow, these measurements give access to the film thickness and thus to the

correlating variable 6* (equation 79).

Values of the three enhancement factors along the flow have been obtained, for each experiment, in the

following way: All along the length of the flow, two experimental results are available, i.e. the wall heat

flux and the void fraction. Near the quench front, the first enhancement factor (vapour friction) has

little influence on the numerical results. The underlying physical reason is that, the liquid subcooling

being high, most of the wall heat flux goes into the liquid core, and vapour generation is low. On the

contrary, far away from the quench front, the third enhancement factor (transfers inside the liquid)

becomes ineffective. The reason is that the liquid is close to saturation, and only absorbs a small part of

the wall heat flux. Each experimental (heat flux and void fraction vs. distance from the quench front)

curve was divided into two sections. In the first section, near the quench front, the second enhancement

factor (vapour heat transfer) and the third one (transfers inside the liquid) were considered as dominant

and stepwise computed, at each elevation, from the experimental results. In the second section, further

downstream, the first enhancement factor(vapour friction) and the second one (vapour heat transfer)

were computed. In each section, an extrapolation was used for the remaining enhancement factor. The

results from each section depend to some extent on the results from the other. An iterative procedure

was thus used until convergence was reached. The process was complex and partly interactive.

The results obtained for Al. (vapour-interface friction) differ to some extent from one experiment to

another. Nevertheless, a common trend may clearly be detected, as may be seen in figure 3. The results

obtained for Ah, (heat transfer in the vapour film) correlate fairly well with 6P, as shown in figure 4. It

may be noted that no clear transition to turbulence (change in slope) appears in this curve.

The following laws are retained for the relations between the first two enhancement factors and P*:

Al. = cr(6")C2 (89)

cl = 0.0362 (90)

C2= 1.96 (91)

0

Ahv = C0(6*)C4 (92)

c3 = 0.679 (93)

C4 = 0.509 (94)

(When P becomes small, Af, and Ah, are not allowed to drop below 1, which would be physically

meaningless).

The results obtained for Al (interface-liquid transfers, figure 5) are quite scattered, especially in the

region downstream from the hot patches where, for some experiments, A) takes very large values. This

might be due to a shortcoming of the present IAFB model, due e.g. to a physical phenomenon not being

accounted for in this zone. However, it is believed that the hot patch technique is, at least partially,

responsible for the effect observed. Indeed, the same trend (enhanced heat flux, in some cases, in the

17
.3 _ _ _ ^ 0 .X_ X

log I Iie 0siones ',gJckm

1z.

Figue -: aou-inef rcin

01.

10

Ofe

C n - ;; 

- -

0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.8

loglO (Dimensionles Fm thickness)

Figure 3: Vapour-interface friction.

Correlation of the vapour-interface friction enhancement factor Af. using Fung's (1981) experimental

data.

The absence of experimental points in the left part of the graph is due to the low influence of the

vapour-interface friction in this region (see text).

In the experiment designation, the first letter refers to the test section. The first three numbers represent

the inlet velocity (in mm/s) and the last two represent the inlet subcooling (in *C).

region downstream from the hot patch) may be directly observed in the wall heat flux profiles (curves

in Annex). The hot patches being relatively long, i.e., 5.3 times the tube diameter in most cases and

2.1 in the remaining ones, and the quench front being most likely situated near the hot patch inlet,

the zone concerned is already quite far from the quench front. Extrapolation of the measured heat

flux up to the quench front region yields, in the cases concerned, to very high values, several times

larger than for comparable reflooding experiments without hot patch. The high values of the wall heat

flux downstream from the hot patch are encountered when the wall temperature is relatively low in

this region (roughly, below 600 0C). The heat transfer enhancement might be due to' partial and/or

intermittent rewetting of the inconel tube downstream from the hot patch. Anyway, this effect, which

seems to be hot-patch-related, is left aside in this study, which mostly concerns reflooding. However,

this means that the values of A, obtained may only be used rather far from the hot patch.

For all experiments, at some point, A, reaches an approximatively constant value (figure 5). The average

of the quasi-constant values obtained for the 14 experiments analysed is 4.18, with a standard deviation

18
Am

t

-a

I

0

-a

C

0.5

0.3 ;

0.3 _________

0.2 _ _ _

0.1 __________

J00 J

0 a.2 0.4 0.6 CA 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

loglO (Dimensionless Film Thickness)

' D •m00 • + +,I'+'I000000

W. 20.1[op), . 1O-201 or. M 0-O

O]P. S -16 DP. BOD-10

1.5

Figure 4: Vapour film heat transfer.

Correlation of the vapour film heat transfer enhancement factor Ah, using Fung's (1981) experimental

data.

The basic model is very close to pure conduction; the enhancement factor may be interpreted as a

Nusselt number.

Experiment designation as in figure 3.

of 0.61, which gives, with a 95% probability threshold:

A\ = 4.18 ± 0.35 (95)

The obtention of a constant value may be interpreted as follows: in a tube, according to Norris (Kays,

1980, pp. 271), the heat transfer increases with the wall roughness up to a certain point only, and then

remains unchanged. For the liquid core in IAFB, far from the quench front, the vapour-liquid interface

would thus be equivalent to a very rough wall.

The constant value \I = 4.18 far from the quench front is retained in the present IAFB model. Entrancelength effects should also be accounted for in the quench front region. As the results derived from Fung's

data may not be used in this region, the relation used in the original model (equation 88) is combined

19
SZ II [

~a III

m

al . ZU

00

5-

0 5 10 15 2025

Distance from Quench Front / Tube Diameter

Q~L~fltH lOTETO C AC J9 01~ . aMMM (EA .035-3

t4i60. SWIG-. - X XX X XX 000000 @@

Figure 5: Interface-liquid transfers.

Correlation of the interface-liquid transfer enhancement factor At using Fung's (1981) experimental data.

The quench front is assumed to be located at the hot patch inlet. The vertical lines represent the hot

patch end, for each test section.

The large values of A,, in the left part of some curves, are attributed to a hot-patch-specific effect, and

not accounted for in the correlation (see text).

Experiment designation as in figure 3.

with the result obtained here in the following way:

At = c5(1+ ce-D-) (96)

C5 = 4.18 (97)

CG = 0.7 (98)

where Dh denotes the hydraulic diameter of the flow and z the distance from the quench front. When

z is small, a maximal value A, = 10 is used.

As explained above, the empirical parameters appearing in the new correlations have been derived

from Fung's results (1981) only, whereas experimental data from other sources have been processed

and analysed (sections 3 and 4). A statistical analysis has been conducted (Schraeder, 1992) to try to

optimize these parameters with respect to the entire data bank. Slightly better parameter sets could

thus be obtained for each individual series of experiments (for example, for the NEPTUN tight lattice

20
experiments), but the overall prediction could not be significantly improved. As Fung's experiments

provide more experimental information than the others (i.e. void fraction measurements), it has been

decided to keep the empirical coefficients unchanged.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the model results are very sensitive to the value of Xh", (film heat

transfer enhancement), the two other factors representing smaller corrections. The derivation of this

factor from the experimental results is rather straightforward, and can be achieved independently from

the IAFB model. Indeed, as mentioned above, Al,, is very close to the ratio between the convection wall

heat flux and the pure conduction heat flux (the small difference corresponding to the vapour sensible

heating rate): , "qw- (99) qcond

with

= = q, - qr (100)

(q. is the radiation heat flux) and

The variables involved in equations 99 and 101, as well as in the correlating variable V (equation 79),

are directly derived from experimental results (provided void fraction or film thickness measurements

are available). The correlation proposed for Aj%, (equation 92) has thus an intrinsic value and is very

reliable, provided the experimental results used are precise.

Another advantage of this correlation (and also of the correlation proposed for X1., equation 89) is that

it is, to a large extent, independent of the flow channel geometry and of the parameter ranges. The

reason for this is that the vapour film geometry remains the same, i.e. an annular geometry, in both a

tube and a rod bundle. The tube or rod diameter should not much influence the results since the most

determining parameter is the film thickness, which keeps the same order of magnitude in all cases. The

only significant limitation of the correlation is at high liquid velocities (several m/s), where the interface

velocity is no longer small in comparison with the vapour velocity; in this case, as mentioned above,

6* is no more suited as a correlating variable. Experimental results corresponding to this situation are

presented in section 3. However, this situation is not likely to occur during reflooding.

3 Processing of experimental data

The model presented above has been assessed against experimental data from four independant sources.

The first one is the NEPTUN rod bundle reflooding experiment at the Paul-Scherrer Institute (Dreier

et al., 1990; Griitter et al., 1980). The second one is the University of California-Berkeley single tube,

internally reflooded tube experiment (Seban, 1983; Seban et al., 1978). The third and the fourth ones

are the University of Ottawa (Fung, 1981) and UKAEA-Winfrith (Savage et al., 1989, 1991) steady-state

tube experiments using the hot patch technique. Among the available data, the most relevant to the

IAFB regime have been selected, i.e. the experiments where the equilibrium quality above the quench

front is still negative and the quench front velocity is much lower than the flooding rate. In fact, among

the NEPTUN and UC-Berkeley data, these IAFB-relevant experiments constitute a minority. For the

University of Ottawa and UKAEA-Winfrith data, the availability of void fraction measurements has

also been a choice criterion.

3.1 NEPTUN data

3.1.1 Experimental conditions

The data analysed were obtained by forced-feed bottom reflooding of a simulated standard pressurized

water reactor (PWR) bundle (Frei & Stierli, 1984; Stierli & Yanar, 1985) and a simulated light water

21
high conversion reactor (LWHCR) bundle (Rouge, Dreier & al., 1992). The heated length was 1.68 m. A

continuously variable cosine profile with a peaking factor of 1.58 was used. The PWR bundle consisted

of 33 electrically heated rods and 4 guide tubes, with a square lattice and a pitch-to-diameter ratio

of 1.33 (13.6 mm hydraulic diameter), placed in an octagonal housing. The LWHCR bundle consisted

of 37 heated rods, with a triangular lattice and a pitch-to diameter ratio of 1.13 (4.4 mm hydraulic

diameter), placed in a hexagonal housing.

The test bundle was instrumented at 8 equally spaced levels. At these levels, the cladding temperature

was measured, and the wall heat flux was derived by means of an inverse one-dimensional heat conduction

computation (Giintay, 1980; Aksan et al., 1979).

The quench time of each measurement level is derived from the temperature vs. time traces. An

interpolation gives the time trace of the quench front position, and the quench front velocity is derived

(Dreier, 1985).

The liquid flow rate and temperature at the inlet of the bundle are measured, as well as the absolute

pressure at the outlet of the bundle and the differential pressures between the successive levels and for

the whole test section.

The measurement results obtained for the various rod bundles tested, as well as the secondary variables,

have been put together, in a standardized form, in the NEPTUN Working Data Bank (Taube, 1985;

Richner & Dreier, 1986; Rouge, 1990; Rouge et al., in progress). Documented software (Richner, 1987;

Rouge, 1989) allow easy access, visualization and processing of the data.

3.1.2 Interpolation method

For implementation and assessment of the model, the wall temperature and heat flux are needed as

functions of the distance from the quench front, C = z - zq!, for a given position of this quench front.

What is, however, available are only several temperature and heat flux histories at discrete elevations.

Thus, a specific interpolation method was devised to obtain the temperature and heat flux profiles,

minimizing the error introduced by this procedure.

The temperature, for example, is only known as a function of time at the eight measurement levels. The

measured values are transposed from the (t, z) coordinates into the (t, C) coordinates. In this frame,

the temperature is known on eight curves C(t) corresponding to the eight thermocouples. The value of

the temperature at a given time and a given C is interpolated vs. time between the values given by two

successive thermocouples for the same C (but at different times). This is coherent with the assumption

of a quasi-steady process propagating with the quench front velocity.

3.1.3 Conditions at the quench front

The values of the flow variables immediately above the quench front are needed as initial conditions for

the model. In practice, it is assumed that the whole heat release at the quench front serves to reduce

the liquid subcooling (no vapour generation). The validity of this assumption is discussed below. The

liquid velocity and temperature, and the pressure, have to be specified.

The liquid velocity is deduced from the inlet flow-rate. The pressure at the quench front p.1 is deduced

from the measured values of the pressure at the outlet of the bundle pout and the test section pressure

drop [ApJ?', assuming a zero void fraction below the quench front and neglecting the frictional and

accelerational terms in this region:

Pq! = Pout + [APJ9',t -Agzf! (102)

where z91 denotes the quench front elevation and 5j1 the average liquid density (averaged between the

22
inlet and saturation conditions).

The liquid temperature is derived from a heat balance following a fluid particle:

pi Ac1 Dý-T = q. P. (103)

where f denotes the substantial derivative; q. is the wall heat flux and P. the wall perimeter.

Relation 103 is integrated numerically between the bundle inlet and the quench front, which requires

knowledge of the wall heat flux at any axial position and at any time. This heat flux is evaluated using

the interpolation method described above.

3.2 UC-Berkeley data

These data were obtained by forced reflooding of single electrically heated vertical tubes, about 14.3

mm in inside diameter and 3.7 m high. The wall temperature was measured at several points along the

tube. The wall heat flux was then estimated from a lumped-parameter heat balance for the heated wall,

the heat losses being accounted for.

The software developed for the NEPTUN data require, as input, detailed computer files of numerous

experimental variables. For lack of such files, these software could not be applied to the UC-B results.

More approximative procedures had to be used for the derivation of the wall temperature and heat

flux distributions, and of the liquid temperature just above the quench front. The measurements from

a single thermocouple were used to obtain the entire temperature and heat flux distributions, as a

function of the distance from the quench front approaching that particular thermocouple; a space-time

transformation (without interpolation of data from adjoining thermocouples) was used.

For the liquid temperature just above the quench front, the following model is used. The basic assumption is that the liquid enthalpy rise between the test section inlet and a cross section situated just above

the quench front results from the superposition of two contributions: the release of the heat (electrically)

generated in the wall, and the heat release associated with the quench phenomenon:

Ah, = (epT)+ - (cpT)in - (Ahi),I + (Ahl)q (104)

where the superscripts in and + refer to the test section inlet and the quench front, respectively.

The first contribution (electrical heating) is evaluated using the energy balance for the fluid and the solid

wall (tube) in the fixed control volume limited by the test section inlet and the quench front position

at the time considered. As in Lee et al. (1983), the release of the electrically generated heat is assumed

to be a steady process. The energy balance reads

pAC/n(Ah,), = Qe. - Q, (105)

where Q,1 and Q1 denote the electrical power and the heat losses (for the region concerned), respectively.

The heat release associated with the quench is assumed to be a quasi-steady process, i.e., invariant in

a frame of reference moving with the quench front. Therefore, for the evaluation of the resulting liquid

enthalpy rise, the control volume (between inlet and quench front) is assumed to move with the quench

front velocity Vl.. The energy balance for the fluid and the solid wall reads

piA(V/I -_Vq)(AhA) 1 = [(CT)+ - (CT)in]V9 (106)

where C. denotes the wall heat capacity per unit length.

23
Equations 104 to 106 give

1 Qei- Q' (GT), - (Cr)in?V, 1 T + (107)

The approximative relation proposed (equation 107) has been assessed against the (presumably) more

accurate computational procedure developed for the NEPTUN data (integration of equation 103), using

the NEPTUN data bank. The results are remarkably coherent (less than 2 OC difference for T1 for the

NEPTUN runs presented in this study).

3.3 University of Ottawa data

These data, which have served as a basis for the three new correlations, have already been discussed in

section 2.5.3.

The estimation of the liquid temperature just downstream of the quench front poses a particular problem

when the "hot patch" technique is used. Indeed, the hot patch, being a few centimeter long, cannot

be considered as punctual, and large axial heat fluxes take place within it. The hot-patch-fluid heat

transfer is only known as a whole and some assumptions have to be used to discriminate between the

amount of heat that is released at (or upstream of) the quench front, and the heat released downstream.

A specific model has been developed for the estimation of the liquid temperature just downstream of

the quench front, in hot-patch experiments, using the IAFB model itself, and based on the following

considerations. The quench front is supposed to stay at the hot patch inlet, and no vapour generation

is assumed at this quench front, the whole quench front heat release being used to reduce the liquid

subcooling; this last assumption was already used in reflooding situations. An arbitrary value of the

quench front heat release is first chosen, which allows to run the IAFB model over the hot patch length.

This gives an estimation of the wall heat transfer rate between the quench front and the outlet. The

sum of this heat rate and of the assumed quench front heat release is then compared to the total hot

patch heat rate, which was measured. An iterative process enables the right value of the quench front

heat release to be calculated.

3.4 UKAEA-Winfrith data

These data are steady-state, post-dryout heat transfer data for vertical flow of water inside an electrically

heated Nimonic tube of 9.75 mm inside diameter and 920 mm length. As for the University of Ottawa

experiments, the "hot patch" technique was used. The wall temperature was measured at 15 axial

locations, and the heat transfer rates were derived from these measurements. The void fraction was

measured at three locations using 7-densitometry. The hot patch model described above has also been

used for these data.

4 Model assessment and conclusions

The model is implemented in the way described in section 2.4. The computational results are displayed

as values of the heat transfer coefficient plotted against the distance from the quench front. In the

cases where void fraction measurements are available, the predicted axial void fraction profiles are also

plotted.

24
4.1 Importance of the initial conditions

Lacking any experimental information, no vapour flow rate at the quench front is assumed as an initial

condition. Anyway, the model is, to a certain extent, insensitive to the initial vapour flow rate: this

was shown by computational tests performed assuming that half the heat release at the quench front

served to vaporize some liquid. For these tests, an initial vapour temperature had to be specified for

the model. Any realistic value (between the saturation temperature and the wall temperature) could in

fact be used, without significantly affecting the results. An initial film thickness (or an initial vapour

velocity) had also to be specified; this influence was also investigated using plausible values of the film

thickness. In any case, beyond 1 mm from the quench front, the results were not significantly different

from those obtained without initial vapour flow.

4.2 Results

The cases analysed, together with the main experimental parameters, are listed in tables 2 to 7. The

computational results are exhaustively displayed (Annex) in the form of comparison with the experimental results and the predictions of the original model. The calculations are arbitrarily stopped when

a void fraction of 60 % is reached. Indeed, it is unlikely that IAFB could persist beyond this value. The

irregularities in the left parts of certain curves obtained for the "hot patch" experiments are attributed

to the transition between the hot patch and the test section itself (section 2.5.3; the quench front, taken

as the abscissa origin, is assumed to be located at the hot patch inlet).

25
Run number 5025 1 5150 1 5249 I6027 04

Geometry PWR LWHCR

bundle bundle

Experiment bottom reflooding

Hydraulic diameter (mm) 13.6 13.6 13.6 4.4 4.4

Quench front 71 94 71 94 48 71 48 71 48 71

elevation (cm)

Pressure at 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.2 1.0 1.0 4.4 4.3 1.1 1.0

quench front (bar)

Flooding rate (cm/s) 10.3 10.2 15.3 2.7 15.9 10.1

Quench front 1.4 1.5 1.9 11.90.310.2 1.3 11.2 0.810.5

velocity (cm/a) I I ...L............

Inlet subcooling (°C) 80

(nominal value)

Subcoolingjust 21 12 27 25 23 0 12 6 13 16

above quench front (°C)

Wall temperature just 496 487 544 484 412 403 438 465 374 414

above quench front (*C)

Wall temperature 30 cm 614 472 661 516 762 736 637 601 585 593

above quench front ("C)

Table 2: Main parameters of NEPTUN experiments (Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland)

used for IAFB model assessment.

Run number 111241193 129 192 30661306713060

Geometry tube

Hydraulic diameter (mm) 14.4 14.25

Experiment bottom reflooding

Quench front 183 122

elevation (cm)

Pressure at 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 2.1 3.1

quench front (bar)

Flooding rate (cm/s) 7.5 12.1 16.9 17.3 12.7 12.7 12.7

Quench front 1.4 2.0 5.3 4.6 3.0 3.0 3.0

velocity (cm/s)

Inlet subcooling (°C) 79

(nominal value)

Subcooling just 7 17 9 21 10 11 11

above quench front (C)

Wall temperature just 315 379 401 406 424 417 411

above quench front (°C)

Wall temperature 30 cm 445 528 478 543 576 538 516

above quench front (°C)

Table 3: Main parameters of UC-Berkeley experiments used for IAFB model assessment.

26
Run number D350 I D400

Geometry tube

Hydraulic diameter (nun) 11.9

Experiment steady state (hot patch), upflow

Hot patch length 63

(cm)

Pressure at 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 11.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.I .1I 1.0

quench front (bar)

Flooding rate (cm/s) 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.7 37.7 40.9 40.9 41.0_40.9140.9 40.9

Inlet subcooling (°C) 20

(nominal value)

Subcooling just 14 15 16 14 13 13 15 16 17 14 14 12

above quench front (°C)

Wall temperature just 517 522 503 511 515 518 522 513 511 514 502 501

above quench front (°C)

Wall temperature 30 cm 914 977 1031 906 835 770 916 989 1042 844 779 700

above quench front (-C)

Table 4: Main parameters of University of Ottawa experiments used for correlation of heat

and momentum transfer enhancement in IAFB (Group I).

Run number D500 I E200 I &M I

11-201 -2021-203 -204 1-1011-102 1-1031-104 1-201 -1,711-1721

Geometry tube

Hydraulic diameter (mm) 11.9

Experiment steady state (hot patch), upflow

Hot patch length 6.3 2.5

(cm)

Pressure at 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 11.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 11.2

quench front (bar) I

Flooding rate (cm/a) 51.1151.1 51.1151.0 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.1 31.0130.9

Inlet subcooling (°C) 20 10 20 17

(nominal value)

Subcoolingjust 16 17 15 13 9 10 9 9 17 16 16

above quench front (OC)

Wall temperature just 508 502 493 515 571 576 563 559 561 590 557

above quench front (°C)

Wall temperature 30 cm 910 977 831 772 922 982 873 810 1007 967 900

above quench front (*C)

Table 5: Main parameters of University of Ottawa experiments used for correlation of heat

and momentum transfer enhancement in IAFB (Group II).

27
Run number E400 1 E500

11-1011-102 -1031-104 -1o5 -16 -1621-1011-1021-1031-1041

Geometry tube

Hydraulic diameter (mm) 11.9

Experiment steady state (hot patch), upflow

Hot patch length 2.5

(cm)

Pressure at 1.3 11.2 1.21 1.2 1.11.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2

quench front (bar)

Flooding rate (cm/s) 41.1141.1 1.1141.0141.0 41.0 41.0 51.3 51.3 51.2151.2

Inlet subcooling (OC) 10 16 10

(nominal value)

Subcooling just 13 13 13 12 10 16 17 13 14 12 11

above quench front (oC)

Wall temperature just 579 583 574 574 518 525 570 547 544 535 535

above quench front (oC)

Wall temperature 30 cm 988 937 889 810 757 867 943 926 984 850 812

above quench front (oC)

Table 6: Main parameters of University of Ottawa experiments used for correlation of heat

and momentum transfer enhancement in IAFB (Group III).

Run number 113991 40014011 4021 4031 404140514121413 414

Geometry tube

Hydraulic diameter (mm) 9.75

Experiment steady state (hot patch), upflow

Hot patch length 3.6

(cm)

Pressure at 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 5.1 5.1 5.0

quench front (bar)

Flooding rate (cm/s) 211 211 210 211 208 210 209 215 214 213

Inlet subcooling (OC) 15 14 12 11 10 9 9 6 5 5

Subcooling just 13 12 10 9 8 7 7 4 3 3

above quench front (OC)

Wall temperature just 590 590 590 590 590 591 591 589 589 589

above quench front (*C)

Wall temperature 30 cm 757 696 597 512 455 426 370 422 400 373

above quench front (OC)

Table 7: Main parameters of UKAEA-Winfrith experiments used for IAFB model assessment.

28
The original model predictions are inadequate in many cases. The new IAFB model gives a good

overall prediction of Fung's (University of Ottawa) experimental results. This is not surprising since

the new closure laws are based on these results. Of more interest, is the assessment of the model

against the rest of the data bank, i.e., ten NEPTUN files (standard pressurized water reactor and light

water high converter reactor rod bundle reflooding), seven University of California-Berkeley files (tube

reflooding) and ten UKAEA-Winfrith files (tube, steady state). For the first two series of data, the

overall predictions of the model are also good, with a relative standard deviation lower than 15%.

For the Winfrith experiments, the heat transfer coefficients are fairly well predicted, but the void

fraction is underpredicted, as illustrated in figure 6. The reason for this is well understood and has been

discussed in section 2 together with the choice of the non-dimensional film thickness 6* (equation 79)

as a correlating parameter. It is related to the high liquid velocities (about 2 rn/s, i.e. one order of

magnitude larger than in expected reflooding situations) involved in these experiments. If the liquid

velocity is no longer small in comparison to the vapour velocity, then, for a given 6*, the vapour absolute

velocity is higher. In this case, the vapour flow becomes turbulent and the heat transfer mechanisms

are modified. The model, being based on V, does not account for this effect. As the present work

is concerned mostly with reactor core reflooding, no attempt was made to account for this particular

effect.

The main experimental trends, i.e. the favourable effects of system pressure, flooding rate and water

subcooling just downstream from the quench front on heat transfer, are well described by the model.

These main trends are illustrated by figures 7 to 10.

For standard PWR bundle reflooding, the effect of the flooding rate and of the water subcooling at

the quench front may be seen in figure 7. The combined increases of water subcooling and flooding

rate for Run 5150 in comparison to run 5025 result in increased heat transfer, in agreement with the

experimental observations. The combined effects of flooding rate and system pressure are shown for the

LWHCR bundle data in figure 8. Again the calculated trends agree with the experimental ones. The

effect of system pressure alone is shown in figure 9 for tube reflooding data. The heat transfer coefficient

increases with pressure; again the model predicts the experimental trend well.

The model also satisfactorily predicts some less obvious trends of the experimental data. For example,

figure 10 illustrates the influence of the local wall temperature on the void fraction. A higher wall.

temperature leads to a significantly higher void fraction. The following section will ease the physical

understanding of such effects.

4.3 Prominent effects and physical variables in IAFB

The following considerations are mainly based on the analysis of the detailed numerical results of

the model, physical justifications being rather given a posteriori. With certain approximations, an

approximative explicit solution may be found to the equations presented in section 2, which allows to

point out the prominent mechanisms in IAFB heat transfer. The basic assumption is that both the

vapour heating rate Qh and the vaporization heat rate Q. 4. are much lower than the wall heat rate

Q., so that the whole wall heat rate is transferred to the liquid core. That is, neglecting the radiation

term:

Q. = Q.. = Q~i = Quh (108)

The validity of this basic assumption, which may be seen in the numerical results to apply for "ideal"

IAFB, i.e. when the liquid subcooling is high enough (typically, more than 10 0C) and the void fraction

29
~700 M

WO ~0.

5700 -0.5

400 ~ ~c 0.4

0.

200 - 4 0.2

100 .ý A,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 79 80 90 1S0

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

Ia-W+00++ @W K%.......A. ..........

Figure 6: IAFB heat transfer and void fraction in a tube at high flooding rate.

Comparison of experimental and predicted heat transfer coefficient and void fraction distributions downstream from the quench front for UKAEA-Winfrith steady-state experiment 399: 211 cm/s flooding rate

(2.6 bar pressure and 13 0C subcooling just downstream from the quench front).

Note. The values near the right end of the figure are influenced by the presence of a second hot patch

at the test section outlet.

small enough (less than 10 %), will be discussed below.

Furthermore, the film thickness is assumed to be much lower than the hydraulic diameter (this assumption is not required to obtain an explicit solution, but the resulting expressions are simpler). The wall

and interfacial perimeters beeing thus close together, equation 108 may be simply rewritten in terms of

heat fluxes (instead of heat transfer rates per unit height):

qw = qwv = q,,i qih (109)

As already mentioned in section 2.5.3, the vapour film heat transfer model (equations 33 to 43) is almost

equivalent to a pure conduction model where the vapour thermal conductivity is enhanced by a factor

30
700

r. 6o0

(U

S400 ......ins,. ,l ;, '......... ......

200 i -. ).

0 10 20 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ MM 2W . WEReff4 52.N MMPL 5150. ruEVMWo % M

el i ST-I II n * • S aS• * lU llllnlllinllllllnlllu ' iI•l I..I

Figure 7: Effect of subcooling at the quench front and flooding rate on IAFB heat transfer

in a standard PWR bundle.

Comparison of experimental and predicted heat transfer coefficient distributions downstream from the

quench front for:

- NEPTUN 5025 reflooding experiment: 12 0C subcooling, 10 cm/s flooding rate

- NEPTUN 5150 reflooding experiment: 25 0C subcooling, 15 cm/s flooding rate

(4 bar pressure in both cases) and 95 cm quench front elevation.

Note. Calculations stopped at 60 % void fraction.

q,• = 6/ T.- (110)

where the enhancement factor is given by equations 36, 37, 38 and 30.

Substituting equations 36 and 30 in equation 110, with the approximation c4 - 1/2 gives the following

expression for the wall heat flux

qw -" C3 ,V[P" (PL P2) g]* -6 (T - T,) (111)

On the other hand, the liquid heating flux is given by

31
4f# 500

___ -0 I- . ,

40 4

S 0".... ..... ,

200

100

0 5 10 15 20

Distance from Quench Front /Hydraulic Diameter

.... *ge *a ...... ::,~ .:. e ... ..

Figure 8: Effect of flooding rate and pressure on IAFB heat transfer in a LWHCR bundle.

Comparison of experimental and predicted heat transfer coefficient distributions downstream from the

quench front for:

- NEPTUN 6044 reflooding experiment: 10 cm/s flooding rate, 1 bar pressure

- NEPTUN 6027 reflooding experiment: 16 cm/s flooding rate, 4 bar pressure

(about 12 OC subcooling at the quench front in both cases) and 48 cm quench front elevation.

Note. Calculations stopped at 60 % void fraction.

q~h = hI(T, - TI) (112)

with, assuming turbulent flow, a heat transfer coefficient deduced from the interfacial shear stress using

the Chilton-Colburn analogy (equations 48 and 68).

The elimination of U1 - Uj between equations 48 and 68, with the approximation of a constant friction

coefficient fl, gives

hi = p / i I-- P., ) 2 r.2 (113)

Sipr 23

20I

Th nefca ha tesi eatdt h aorflcuyny ndte otevi rcino h

32
700

,Is=600

,oo ". "-.%

cc 00 ". == ''e?, ..

1 300 , •,

XX

0

0 10 20 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

, ,V. LEO DORMNI. ECB 3W. KM

X X X X X X (00m W , •,MM M0

Figure 9: Effect of pressure on IAFB heat transfer in a tube.

Comparison of experimental and predicted heat transfer coefficient distributions downstream from the

quench front for:

- UC-Berkeley 3066 reflooding experiment: 1 bar pressure

- UC-Berkeley 3067 reflooding experiment: 2 bar pressure

- UC-Berkeley 3060 reflooding experiment: 3 bar pressure

(13 cm/s flooding rate and about 11 0C subcooling at the quench front in all cases) and 122 cm quench

front elevation.

Note. Calculations stopped at 60 % void fraction.

vapour film thickness. This relation is obtained by eliminating the pressure gradient between the vapour

and liquid momentum conservation equations. Neglecting the convective terms leads to equation 80,

which is rearranged using the assumptions 6 < R and ri = r., giving

ri = (p, -P p)g 6/2 (114)

The last assumption, as it appears in equations 20 to 26, amounts to saying that the vapour-interface

momentum transfer enhancement factor A/, is close to one. This is true for low void fractions: typically,

for vapour at 5 bar and 300 0C, in a 14 mm diameter tube, Ap, (equations 27 to 29) is close to one until

a void fraction of about 5 % is reached (Api = 1.27 for cf, = 5 %). Beyond this value, A". strongly

increases (Af. = 5 for a ,

, = 10 %). Anyway, the error on 7- is limited to a factor two (corresponding to

33
0

S0.7

C.,

0.5 ,

0.4 •*••

0.19

00 10 20 3

St'S

Distance from Quench Front /Hydraulic Diameter

Figure 10: Effect of wall temperature on IAFB void fraction in a tube.

Comparison of experimental and predicted void fraction distributions downstream from the quench front

for:

- University of Ottawa E400-101 steady-state experiment: 579 OC to 988 °(C wall temperature

- University of Ottawa E400-104 steady-state experiment: 574 °(C to 810 OC wall temperature

(I bar pressure, 41 cm/s flooding rate and about 13 *C subcooling just downstream from the quench

front in both cases).

Note. Calculations stopped at 60 % void fraction.

Af,, >> 1 and thus r,", <• ri in equation 80), which, according to what follows, gives a factor 2t1/4 on the

heat transfer, i.e. an error lower than 20 %.

Subsituting ri in equation 113, and then hi in equation 112 gives the following expression for the liquid

heating flux

qth prl= 4- " P(

Finally, equating q., and qth (equations I I and 115), and eliminating b between the two expressions

gives

34
6 ,(X_ P,)' (p'l PVgi[ T. -T, 6=~, a~c,,I • ,)g- T - (116)

and

g" " (cs k,,)i(Lff i [P" (PIPV)2]A[(p,1 - pv)gJ .T-- . T JP (117)

h . T 4 pr1' 3 lV yT T 

Qualitatively, an interpretation may be given for the heat transfer mechanism in "ideal" (high liquid

subcooling, low void fraction) IAFB, based on the following observations. When the film thickness

increases, on one hand, the wall-interface heat flux tends to decrease. On the other hand, the buoyancy

force, and thus the interfacial force and the heat transfer between the interface and the bulk liquid, tend

to increase. Immediately downstream from the quench front, the wall heat flux is very high. Rapid

vapour generation takes place, increasing the film thickness and thus the interfacial momentum and heat

transfers, and decreasing the wall heat flux. Over a very short distance, a quasi-equilibrium between

the wall heat flux and the liquid heating flux is reached. Further downstream, this quasi-equilibrium

evolves according to the locally prevailing conditions of liquid subcooling and wall temperature. In fact,

the film thickness increases, mainly due to the decrease of the liquid sucooling: the combined effects of

the vapour heat transfer reduction and liquid-interface heat coefficient augmentation compensate the

reduction of the liquid-interface temperature difference. The validity of the basic assumption made

(equation 108) relates to the fact that the proportion of the wall heat flux needed to generate some

vapour and restore the quasi-equilibrium remains low. This situation lasts until the liquid subcooling

becomes too low and the liquid core is no more able to absorb the near totality of the wall heat flux.

An interesting feature of the approximative solution (equation 117) is that it does not involve any vapour

film friction factor. Some numerical tests have shown that the exact model itself is relatively insensitive

to the expression for the vapour film friction factor. Reciprocally, this explains the dispersion of the

values obtained when the friction factor is back-computed from void fraction and heat transfer results

(figure 3).

The liquid velocity U1 does not appear explicitely in the approximative solution. As the closure laws of

the complete model involve only the liquid velocity relative to the interface, they are also little sensitive

to U1, provided it remains much lower than the vapour velocity. However, the liquid velocity, or flow

rate, has a strong "integral" effect on the results through the energy conservation equation: the rate of

decrease of the liquid subcooling along the flow is inversely proportional to the liquid flow rate.

Equation 117 clearly shows that the liquid subcooling is an influential variable for IAFB heat transfer.

An unfavourable effect of the wall temperature T. on the heat transfer coefficient also appears in

equation 117. However, this effect is also linked to the temperature dependence of the vapour physical

properties. In order to understand how the various effects compete, the following approximation is

made:

T. = (T. -- T.)/2 (118)

The influence of T,, on the heat transfer coefficient may then be obtained from equation 117:

1 A 1 Ok, 1 p,, 1 ap, 1 (119)

A WT,. - 4k., O, T 24p, &T, 12p, 8T,' 2(T.- T,)

For some typical conditions (p = 1 bar, T,. = 700 OC), the following numerical values are obtained:

I Ok = 5.2 10-4 0C-1 (120)

4k•,, O2

35
2 OT = -0.6 10-4 OC-1 (121) 24p. OT.

121 12t OT,, T - 1.4 1~0-0°c1 (122)

1

1 = -8.3 10-4 0C-1 2(T. - T.) (123)

There is thus a resulting, unfavourable effect, of the wall temperature on the heat transfer coefficient:

1 Oh 1 - - -5.1 10-4 °C-1 (124) h 19T1,,

However, this effect (5% heat transfer reduction for 100 0C temperature increase) is still of secondary

order.

Concerning the void fraction (or film thickness), the conclusion is quite different. In equation 116, it

may be seen that, this time, the favourable effect of the wall temperature on the void fraction is no more

attenuated, but amplified by the temperature dependence of the vapour thermal conductivity. This is

the trend shown in figure 10.

The favourable effect of the pressure (shown in figure 9) also appears in equation 117, through pt,,

although this effect is rather weak (exponent 1/12). From figure 9, one would expect a stronger dependence. However, a deeper analysis of the test parameters (table 3) shows that the differences between

the three curves in figure 9 are due to some small differences in the subcooling and in T. - T, as much

as to the pressure influence.

4.4 Conclusions

A six equation model was supplemented with closure laws specific to the IAFB regime. Closure laws

applicable to tube and various bundle geometries were proposed; thus, all cases can be calculated with

the same basic model.

The key point of the model proposed is the formulation of the heat and momentum transfers between

the vapour-liquid interface and the liquid bulk, based on the liquid velocity relative to the interface.

Indeed, the heat transfer rate in IAFB is strongly influenced by the heat transfer within the liquid core,

which in turn is strongly coupled with the vapour film hydrodynamics. The formulation proposed in

section 2.3.2 appears to be the only way to account for this coupling. Such a formulation does not seem

to have been previously applied to IAFB.

The classical single-phase fluid dynamics and heat transfer laws have proven to be insufficient for describing IAFB. The interactions between the two phases, and, in particular, the irregular nature of the

interface, have to be accounted for. As attempting a fully analytical description would have led to

very complex developments, the use of, at least partially, empirical closure laws was required. In the

previous models, some correlations were used that had been derived for other situations than IAFB,

and whose applicability to IAFB was questionable. In the model proposed, some new correlations have

been developed, based this time on measurements performed in IAFB. These new closure laws may be

used outside the frame of the present model and thus have an intrinsic value.

Such specific closure laws are essential for accurate predictions of the heat fluxes or wall temperatures

during IAFB. Indeed, the models actually implemented in the computer codes used for safety analysis

can be shown to produce inadequate predictions (Analytis, 1990).

Forced flow, subcooled film boiling experimental results from four different sources have been processed

and analysed. The IAFB model has been successfully assessed against 57 experiments corresponding to

very different geometries and parameter ranges in the Annex to this report. Although further assessment

36
would be useful, particularly against void fraction data, this model seems now to represent an efficient

analysis tool.

It seems useful to try and apply the results of the IAFB analysis to the safety codes in order to improve

their description of post dryout, low-quality heat transfer.

37
A Nomenclature

A cross sectional flow area [M2]

cj...e6 constants (eqs. 27, 36, 51) [-]

CP specific heat at constant pressure [J/(kg K)]

Dh hydraulic diameter [m]

f friction factor [-]

g gravitational constant [m/(s2 )]

h specific enhalpy, heat transfer coefficient [J/kg], [W/m 2 K]

hi liquid-interface heat transfer coefficient (eq. 59) [W/m 2 K]

hvap latent heat of vaporization [J/kg]

k thermal conductivity [W/(m K)]

M mass flowrate per unit height [kg/(s m)]

Nui liquid core Nusselt number (eq. 60) [-]

Nu, vapour film Nusselt number (eq. 31, 32) [-]

P perimeter [im]

p pressure, rod bundle pitch [Pal, [m]

Pr Prandtl number [-]

Q heat transfer rate per unit height [W/m]

q heat flux (W/m 2]

Qh sensible heating rate (per unit height) (eqs. 5, 6) [W/m]

Q1. radiation heat transfer rate (per unit height) [Wlm]

Q,,p vaporization heat rate (per unit height, eq. 17) [W/m]

R tube (internal), rod (external) radius [m]

Re Reynolds number [-]

T temperature [K]

V vapour temperature in the wall sublayer (eqs. 33, 34) [K]

U velocity in a frame of reference moving with the quench front [m/3]

V velocity in a fixed frame [m/s]

z height [m]

38
Greek letters

a area fraction [-]

6 vapour film thickness [m]

6 non-dimensional film thickness (eq. 30) [-]

6' wall sublayer thickness (eqs. 71, 72) [m]

C emissivity [-]

e influence coefficient (eqs. 31, 32) [-]

Af, enhancement factor (vapour-interface momentum transfer, eq. 25) [-J

Ah,, enhancement factor (vapour film heat transfer, eqs. 33, 34) [-]

At enhancement factor (interface-liquid transfers, eqs. 49, 50) [-]

p viscosity [Pa a]

p density [kg/rn3 ]

01 Stefan-Boltzman constant [W/(m 2 K 4 )]

7 shear stress [Pa]

Subscripts

i interface

I liquid

qf quench front

8 saturation

V vapour

w wall

Additional nomenclature is defined locally in the text.

39
B Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Bundesamt fir Energiewirtschaft (BEW), Bern, represented by the

Hauptabteilung fir Sicherheit der Kernanlagen (HSK).

Many thanks are adressed to:

Prof. G. Yadigaroglu, who initiated, stimulated and reviewed this work, allowing the author to benefit

from his vast knowledge of reflooding heat transfer and inverted-annular film-boiling (IAFB);

Dr. J. Dreier, who led this project at the Paul-Scherrer Institute, and acquainted the author with the

NEPTUN experiments;

Dr. G. Analytis, whose research on IAFB has been taken as basis for this study;

Mr. L. Voser, for his contribution to the NEPTUN experiments;

Mr. N. Rouge, for his contribution to the NEPTUN data processing, for the maintenance and extension

of our software, and for the solution of all computer-related problems encountered in this work;

Mr. C. Schraeder, Technische Universitit Braunschweig, for his contribution to the model assessment.

Dr. K. Fung, whose experimental results obtained at the University of Ottawa have been extensively

used in this study; Dr. S. Cheng, for providing us with these results.

AEA Technology, Dr. D. Swinnerton, who communicated us some valuable data obtained on the Winfrith Post-Dryout Heat Transfer Rig-, Nuclear Electric, Mr. P. Lightfoot, and HSE, Dr. G. Artingstall,

who allowed us to access their proprietary data.

C References

Aksan, S.N., Varadi, G. & Giintay, S., 1979, Properties of some materials for use in the analysis of light

water reactor fuel rods and their simulators (e.g. LOFT, NEPTUN), Swiss Federal Institute for Reactor

Research (EIR) Report TM-IN-816.

Analytis, G. Th., 1990, Implementation and assessment of an inverted annular flow model in RELAP5/MOD2, ICAP Meeting, Madrid, Spain.

Analytis, G. Th. & Yadigaroglu, G., 1987, Analytical modeling of inverted-annular film-boiling, Nucl.

Eng. Des. 99, 201-212.

Arrieta, L. & Yadigaroglu, G., 1978, Analytical model for bottom reflooding heat transfer in light water

reactors (the UCFLOOD code), EPRI NP-756.

de Cachard, F. & Yadigaroglu, G., 1991, Analytical modeling of inverted-annular film-boiling: improvement and assessment, European Two-Phase Flow Group Meeting, Rome, C1.

Chan, K.C. & Yadigaroglu, G., 1980, Calculations of film boiling heat transfer above the quench front

during reflooding, Exp. and anal. modeling of LWR safety experiments, Proc. 19 A Nat. Heat Transfer

Conf, Orlando, Florida 7, 65-72.

Costigan, G. & Wade, C. D., 1984, Visualisation of the reflooding of a vertical tube by dynamic neutron

radiography, Proc. Int. Workshop on Post-Dryout Heat Transfer, Salt Lake City, Utah.

De Jarlais, G. & Ishii, M., 1985, Inverted annular flow experimental study, Technical Report NUREG/CR4277.

Denham, M. K., 1983, Inverted annular film boiling and the Bromley model, Report AEE- Winfrith 1590.

Dreier, J., 1990, Auswertung und Modellierung von NEPTUN- Wiederbenetzungsdaten, Jahresbericht,

Bundesamt fir Energiewirtschaft, Bern.

Dreier, J., 1985, NEPTUN-Auswertungen: Quenchfrontinterpolation und Quenchfrontgeschwindigkeitberechnungen wdihrend dem Flutungsvorgang, Eidg. Institut fir Reaktorforschung interner Bericht

TM-32-85-15.

Dreier, J., Chawla, %L, Rouge, N. & Yanar, S., 1990, The NEPTUN experiments on LOCA thermalhydraulics for tight-lattice PWRs, Proc. IAEA Technical Committee on Technical and Economic Aspects

40
of High Converters, Nirnberg.

Edelman, Z., Elias, E. & Naot, D., 1983, Optical illustration of liquid penetration to the vapour film in

inverted annular film boiling, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 26-11, 1715-1717.

Frei, E. & Stierli, F., 1984, NEPTUN: Information about the reflood-experiments 5012-5056, Swiss

Federal Institute for Reactor Research (EIR) TM 32-83-6.

Fung, K. K., 1981, Subcooled and low quality film boiling of water in vertical flow at atmospheric pressure, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Ottawa.

Fung, K. K. & Groeneveld, D.C., 1981, A physical model of subcooled and low quality film boiling of

water in vertical flow at atmospheric pressure, Proc. 7 L Int. Heat Transfer Conference.

Griitter, H., Stierli, F., Aksan, S.N. & Varadi, G., 1980, NEPTUN bundle reflooding experiments: test

facility description, Swiss Federal Institute for Reactor Research (EIR) Report 386.

Giintay, S., 1980, INCON, a computer program for the calculation of non-linear inverse heat conduction

problem in cylindrical geometry using integral heat flux method, Swiss Federal Institute for Reactor

Research (EIR) Report TM 32-80-8.

Kao, H. S., Morgan, C. D., Crawford, M. & Jones, J.B., 1972, Stability analysis of film boiling on

vertical surfaces as a two-phase flow problem, AIChE 118, 147-155.

Kawaji, M., 1984, Transient non-equilibrium two-phase flow: Reflooding of a vertical flow channel,

Ph.D. Thesis, UC-Berkeley.

Kawaji, M., Ng, Y.S., Banerjee, S. & Yadigaroglu, G., 1985, Reflooding with steady and oscillatory

injection: Parti-Flow regimes, void fraction, and heat transfer, Trans. ASME 670-107.

Kays, W. M., 1980, Convective heat and mass transfer, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Lee., N., Wong, S. & Hochreiter, L.E., 1983, Heat transfer mechanism during rod bundle reflooding

in transient two-phase flow, Proceedings of the third CSNI Specialist Meeting, Hemisphere Publishing

Corporation, 243-260.

Rashidi, M., Hetsroni, G. & Banerjee, S., 1991, Mechanisms of heat and mass transport at gas-liquid

interfaces, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 34, 7, 1799-1810.

Richner, M., 1987, Die Programme der NEPTUN Working Databank und das Programm INCON unter

dem Betriebssystem NOS, Eidg. Institut fflr Reaktorforschung interner Bericht AN-32-87-04.

Richner, M. & Dreier. J., 1986, Inhalt der NEPTUN2-Working-Databank, Eidg. Institut fir Reaktorforschung interner Bericht TM-32-86-15.

Rohsenow, W.M. & Hartnett, J.P., 1973, Handbook of Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Rouge, N., 1989, NEWS Programm fuir das Erstellen von graphischen Darstellungen von experimentellen

NEPTUN-Daten, Paul Scherrer Institut TM 42-89-12.

Rouge, N., 1990, NEPTUN Working Databank: Modifikationen und Anpassungen der Programmen und

Daten unter dem Betriebssystem NOS/VE, Paul Scherrer Institut TM 42-90-02.

Rouge, N., Dreier, J., Yanar, S. & Chawla, R., 1992, Experimental comparisons for bottom reflooding

in tight LWHCR and standard LWR geometries, Nudl. Eng. Des. 137, 35-47.

Rouge, N., Yanar, S., de Cachard, F. and Dreier, J, in progress, Verarbeitung und Auswertung von experimentellen Daten des HP 1000-realtime-Datenerfassungssystems, Paul-Scherrer Institut Technische

Mitteilung.

Savage, R.A., Swinnerton, D. & Pearson, K.G., 1989, Heat transfer and voidage data in steady-state

post-dryout at low quality and medium pressure, Safety and Engineering Science Division, Atomic Energy Establishment Winfrith, Data Report AEEW- RL 2486.

Savage, RL. A., Archer, D. Swinnerton, D., 1991, Post-dryout data from test sections featuring a cold

patch and a hot notch, Physics and Thermal Hydraulics Division, AEA Reactor Services Winfrith, Report AEA-RS-1095.

Schraeder, C., 1992, Optimization of closure laws for the modeling of inverted-annular film-boiling,

Diplomarbeit, Institut Jir Raumflug- und Reaktortechnik, Technische Universitit Braunschweig.

Seban, R. A., 1983, Reflooding of a vertical tube at 1, 2 and 3 atmospheres, EPRI Report NP-3191.

Seban, R., Grief, R., Yadigaroglu, G., Elias, E., Yu, K., Abdollahian, D. & Peake, W., 1978, UC-B

reflood program: Experimental data report, EPRI Report NP-743.

Shigechi, T. & Lee, Y., 1991, An analysis on fully developed laminar fluid flow and heat transfer in

41
concentric annuli with moving cores, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 34-10, 2593-2601.

Stierli, F. & Yanar, S., 1985, Flutversuche NEPTUN 2: U~bersicht, Unterlagen, Eidg. Institut fir Reaktorforschung interner Bericht TM-32-85-30.

Suryanarayana, N. V. & Merte, H., 1972, Film boiling on vertical surfaces, Trans. ASME 377-384.

Takenaka, N., Fujii, T., Akagawa, K. & Nishida, K., 1989, Flow pattern transition and heat transfer of

inverted annular flow, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 15, 767-785.

Taube, P., 1985, NEPTUN Data Bank, Swiss Federal Institute for Reactor Research (EIR) Report TM

32-85-20.

Todreas, N. E. & Kazimi, M. S., 1989, Nuclear Systems, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Wallis, G. B., 1970, Annular. two-phase flow, Part 1: A simple theory, Part 2: Additional effects, J. of

Basic Eng. 59, 59-72.

Wallis, G. B., 1970, Annular two-phase flow, Trans. ASME 92, D1.

Yu, K.P., 1987, An experimental investigation of the reflooding of a bare tubular test section, Ph.D.

Thesis, UC-Berkeley.

42
D Annex

Detailed results of the IAFB model assessment:

" NEPTUN experiments: heat transfer coefficient (graphs 1 to 10)

" UC-Berkeley experiments: heat transfer coefficient (graphs 11 to 17)

" University of Ottawa experiments: heat transfer coefficient and void fraction (graphs 18 to 85)

" UKAEA-Winfrith experiments: heat transfer coefficient and void fraction (graphs 86 to 105)

43
NEPTUN 5025, Quench Front Elevation: 946 mm

N.

I

I

-a

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

a i•J m u. SDf AM

NEPTUN 5025, Quench Front Elevation: 714 mm

re

"I

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

44
NEPTUN 5150, Quench Front Elevation: 714 nun

-I

V

S.

V

I-

-I

Lu

V

-J

V

A

j

LuV

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

44164 149ii281411111osg,,e1geIe 11

5150, Quench Front Elevation: 946 mm

0 10 20

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

l GiaecL 1Ul

45
NEPTUN 5249, Quench Front Elevation: 482 mm

900.00 ____

- B 80.00_ ___ _

" 700.00

500.00 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- "%',,,,,,,,,,,,..

100.00

0 1 21 P4 5 6 7 8 9 10~ -O.00 .E....... c I Fon Ele tn 7 m

100.00

00.00 .. . . . . . . . .-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@DRU @ MIT ...... , @=.).m..... .................. ,

im 1.00NEPTUN 5249, Quench Front, Elevation: 714 rnn

V moo~o

600.00

500.00

400.00 1

W00.00 ''"• "

200.00 - -- _

100.00

0 0. . ....... . ........ . ........ . ........ ...... , . ., . . . , , ,. . .. . . . . . . . t,,o,, 

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ W w M •n - . . .. •,rlMOISlllll .... n.l..ln..ln...

46
IT

S51 NEPTUN 6027, Quench Front Elevation: 482 mm 4MA M

-J

V

U

03 6~

-J

0

V

6W00J~

IS

900.00

Well0 .... .. ft""o...

%' • B-•''. ................. • '" "' "'' " 400.00 Z

300.00

200.00

--- m a m.m.... w Own ..

100.00

n fin

4

LJ1.J. .~ VgVV 0 toO

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

.me I~ = i@ KMmh ..,

20

NEPTUN 6027, Quench Front Elevation: 714 mm

900.00

600.00 500.00

400.00

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

MIN a a a @ Millms a am smgunsg

47
NEPTUN 6044, Quench Front Elevation: 482 mm

800.0o i

500.00

400.00 • ......... ,,,,...............

3W0.00.....,,,

200.00

lMOO.

10.00 01

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

& wm... . . ... @ .......... .

NEPTUN 6044, Quench Front Elevation: 714 mm

1=0010

900M.00

7=00

500.00

-J I

100.0

50.00 .

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ u ..g llll l ........ lll...ll....llg.

48
UC-BERKELEY 124

.eJ

V

U

I.-

UV

2

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ .am a ., @ pow... e,,,................. ,

UC-BERKELEY 193

900.00

700.00

600.00

o.oo

V400.00

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

..@ x ,f .................. @ womK

49
UC-BERKELEY 129

900.00

10.00

Io.

0.00 0

70CO

o

O90.00 _ _

5 00.00

4, 700.00

8]0"000.00 _ _ _ _'*

I %,

100.00 * 0.00

(x x x x x x

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ .. ..... @ ..................

UC-BEPKLEY 192

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ M.%. ... ... @O;,,,,, ....

50
i

I UC-BERKL 3066

V

I

I.6.3

V

900.00 ______________

800.00

700.00

600.00

400.00

300.00

2DO.0

44 to 

lam.0 4.. _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _

0.0I

10

Distance from Quench

25

Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@D0M @ ZVVL.Ocz, ..... @ MMIUM614081 n.. .. ..................

UC-BERKELEY 3067

.6.3

V

I

*6.3

'C

V

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@.U.•O ... @KM ............ @oe;Mx

51
UC-BERKELEY 3060

*11

I

j

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

m m • .. ..... , @ =,.,a..,........ .

52
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d350-201

"0

@2

S.

cc

:E

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

K•f• X X K K b*UU. ., ~S.S... @ ................. ,

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d350-201

0

C

I

*0

0

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

S .U . U .. U .. ...........

®Ix x X X X

53
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d350-202

900

5ý 00

500

~400

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ .. w..... .................. ,

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d350-202

0

I

0

@ EMN

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

54
UNIVERSITY OF OITAWA d350-203

IN

cc

:-

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

im RE MO Ml @B0XXX a a w Mir5 5SS

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d350-203

a

I

0

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

mu.... .. .. '.,.-.' s)m m, ...,,m,gm ....... ,,s,,

oXD xxx

55
UNIVERSITY OF O¶ITAWA d350-204

IU

V

-JcU

43'

C

C

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@. M ...... @ M M ..................

UNIVERSITY OF OTrAWA d35O-204

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

x ex x x a a a m .. ,.

56
I•U

Io

3

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d350-205

C:

Co

cc.

:E

+1 1

700

700

600

400

300

200

100

00o

EJ •', . x "• ~~~~~~~~~................ .......... ...... ,, Ix

.. . .3.g. . . . . . . . .6 l a s | I ~ l l l l l l l l l l l

10 2D 30 40

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@C0vM .•m .... •an MM

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d350-205

C

I

*0.5

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

©EUxUxN SU . .. , @ 44119U . 1.464 ...

57
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d350-206

'I

0

U

a

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

LTNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d350-206

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

x x x x x x @MM @M MM

58
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d400-201

-a

cJ

E3

A

5.. VI.-.

-a

V

1uu -n

900

700

600

500

400

30O

200

100

0 0

I Y p

r

ma :3ow wo n

-E________________I_ I____________ 17___

10 20 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

mm.• ..• ...... @.' ,a,, .......... gge~s, ....

40

@ DFUM

UNIVERSITY OF O'TTAWA d400-201

0

j

0

LU .AJ 

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

•mm, M , M . U a 0 Z.'uisI&sgSUI#Iips U 

59
UNIVERSITY OF OITAWA d400-202

900

~700

500

A 400

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

©@ERMHN •|mumu m a

ao

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d400-202

0.9

0.7

0.5 ,40.

0.4'

0.-

0.2

0.1 _._,,_,,,,

0 _ l im mS l ,. In sa l S• I ! | d tl ,

10 20

Distance from Quench Front /

30

Hydraulic Diameter

40

M a uggg e u m

60
UNIVERSMIY OF OTTAWA d400-203

900

Goo 800

0O0

300 1500

0

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

O.M...... @R,,-,, .......... , @X D XXm

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d400-203

0

I

.5

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ ..*. K .. .. @ P ,E , ..........

61
3 UNIVERSITY OF OTFAWA d400-204

-J

8

I-D'U

U

Iw

M

600 _ _ _ _

700

600

5000 __________

40 4 0 0 .

..... , ,.,, , .. . .. . , • .. . .

x ....

2n

-well in I t u u U L m

100

0 ___________ I .... ~.... I...I

0 10 20 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@..M..M....... @ , ......... , ,........

40

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d400-204

0

I

0

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@..M...O....... @&MII.am ............ ,......

62
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d400-205

-I

S.-

V

0

U

3-

V

5-.

~1

V

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

®xxxxxx @...... . @ , ..................

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d400-205

0

j

0

EMM4 X X

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

63
UNIVERSITY OF OTrAWA d400-206

-I

AI..

CU

U

0

I

0

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

... .MMw .. @=,..

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d400-206

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@..M.M .... @ =,• ..... , ..., x ex x x

64
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d500-201

1GUUi 9

4.'

U

8

I.V

I...

-J

V

goo

800

700

600

500

400

I

I

I

:3 _______________________________

-3

S

U

A __________________________ __________________________ __________________________

U

I

.. NilKora,,

~Ialpa.esn Off 30 ........... *, dl

2010 a~s sumeslh 100 3iaU aa U U UU U u a u

0a

0 10 20 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

.. ~.~.I .... . aSS ..................

40

@ODRKM

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d500-201

C

I

.5

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ DM a a a a m. . . ..............

65
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d500-202

CU Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ .. M ams=m ... , @ ,=sam ..................,

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA d500-202

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@....•....., • •,........ @ CROW

66
51 UNIVERSITY OF OfTTAWA d500-203

-5

a,

I.-A

U,

0~

-D

'U

V

9000

700

?00'

* x

* x

Soc% .IUs~Ies.,,,,.....

wUUoe~

inn

0 0 10 20 w 40

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ DU @ gam MM O ffetiesms mlhmsm i............

UNIVERS1TY OF OTTAWA d500-203

C

I

.5

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ GUMKMI¶ @~msae~mmeIsmImI.ahuImmSmsI

67
UNIVERSTY OF OTTAWA d500-204

o00

800

500

400 x_ "- * 

• "•'Pof 

*!•I"gg,,- I i n i 

.I,* 

Oa X s Ja11 Sltftil ~_ ... . . .................... ..... 1

0 10 20 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ w ? . . PM66IS.....................

UIVERTY OF OTrTAWA d500-204

0

0.7'

0.5

0.46

0.3

0.2 ,,i . -

10 20 30

Distance from Quench Front /Hydraulic Diameter

68
|o --- UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e200-101

-a0

I

I..

I

0

U

a

900

800

700

600

5M0L

400k

3w

x

800 x

a.0 0 102 04

°*

@ D•wf @. 'wwtoqJ .- . . .

x . x x " x

100

0 . ' '20 10, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 80'' 40

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e200-101

1.0

0.7

0.

0.6 ~.f" . ,•

u , . 0.23

0.2> 9V_____

0.1

0 j..............I. ......... I ___________

a

O•KXXXX

10 20 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

... ~,s,,,,......

69

40
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e200-102

900

800

700

S00

j500

~400

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

S..... .................

0

I

C

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e200-102

1.0 x

0.9

x

0.8 :_ _ _ __ _ _ _

0.7

0.0 x

0.5

0.4 ,

0.4 OI L

02 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0. VKs _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0 10 20 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

40

®@ERxx ....... ma ~t~,sgi*~iiSISSISIa6IISI6II

70
UNIVERSITY OF OTrAWA e200-103

V

V

a

U

I..

V

I-

-I

V

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ CFGM ''a I * a a I U i S l ,M

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e200-103

0

@ DRFMx

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

71
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e200-104

A

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ CROW @.M M!.. .... ., @ I , ............... .

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e200-104

ad

;1.

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@..@m ma•mooug, ®@eSxxx ,,,,.

72
UNIVERSITY OF OYTTAWA e200-201

-b

@3

@3 C

U

I.. @3

~1

LU@3

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ ...... ... , isg , . ................. ga,,i

0

I

0

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e200-201

1.0

x

o.7

o.4

CIf

0.3 X

0.?

0"0. ,*•'-***

0.1 . . . __ ____

•, , . .. .,,, ....... . . .. ...

U Iq

@ ORRDXXX

u 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

73

40
UNIVERSITY OF OTI'AWA e300-171

I

8

I

I

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

.. . M@ U..... S,¶ ................. ,

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e300-171

a

x ex x x

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ M. x.. 1 ~...... , . .

74
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e300-172

-J

SiI

j

-I

Si

Lo 20 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@RM. .le .m. . n@PIW4 oo1e4M e............. ©EDThx

UNIVERSITY OF OCITAWA e300-172

C

I

0

&PBU04X

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

75
Ui MY OF OTrAWA e400-1O1

wso

500

~4W

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ DRxxx O.. w. 0.a • , 

UNIVERSITY OF OTrAWA e400-101

0

I

0

x

0.7

0.6.

0.4.

02p

A

U 10

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

40

@.. amm HM

76
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e400-102

I.-

-3

'U

V

1uuu

g00

800

700

600 i

Goo

500

400

300

200

100

0

i _______b_________________

ix

4W

10 20

Distance from Quench Front / H•

... . M .

s0

rdraulic Diameter

40

UNIVERSITY OF O'ITAWA e400-102

0

I

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@!W %. ..... @ MIIS ....... , ...........

77
3 UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e400-103

-I

*EI

s-4

I

-h

CU

4,

900

800

5w0

400 __ _ _ _ _ _

So

200 x

100

10 .20 . . . . .

0 10 20

Distance from Quench Front / H•

@ mu

rdraulic Diameter

40

@ DOM~~x

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e400-103

0

U

0

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ OPUMx Dam K P MM

78
I UNIVERSITY OF OITAWA e400-104

I.U

SI

AYUW

900

Sao

700

1100

500

400

200

100

0 :

x011 .... x loss,....

*4. , x

* -m

:771..77.7.77.*t*77.7T.77~77:.Y

10 20 40

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@...M . ..

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e400-104

C

I

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@©ROMcx @ MOM MIMO KI,,,.........

79
UNIVERSITY OF OTFAWA e400-105

ii

C

U

CU

'.4

C

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ * **

UNIVEPRSTY OF OTMAWA e400-105

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

80
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e400-161

-I

0

IC

I..

I-.

0

0

I-

~1

0

10 20 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

__l s @ Kin l

40

@ERR"

UNIVERSITY OF OTTIAWA e400-161

0

C

I

C

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

OMM& M FIM MM

@ BPKx

81
UNIVERSrIY OF OTTAWA e400-162

7500

150

,4W0

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@iM•i n oi• @ oXaoMKDoo•oaoeeelooo @ EVUMN

UNIVERSTY OF OTTAWA e400-162

0

I

0

©@DSxx

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

.... 8 .,

82
V

I UNIVERSITY OF OITAWA e500-101

I

-I

I

I.-

IJUW

Saoo

700

600

500

400

300

100

C

I

3

:i

:1

.3

_ '"%8Uia,,, *e.ux 2 x ...$,#offu ~ * * * ~ u .. ...

-- ex el 

xi 

nltll I l

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 20 40

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@Gma sg[a K XX K Sam .. w .. am s ... 'msssu,,,,mssseu

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e500-101

0

I

a

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ ..... @ ................. @XXX XX

83
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e500-102

700

-800

5w

~4M

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

&.UPI.m ...... @M•,•4 n. ................... @ CROWx

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e500-102

0

I

0

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

...................

84
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e500-103

4 J

U

6~~

I

IUU

go

500

400u~l

300 * X huIUg 1 fhfgp____________________

MOD _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 8I

100

0

-4ani ......m..... MU U UUUU u ww** L. EUUUUU

- i* , + IT I1 |, Il .. I F . . . I . . . . . . . . .

0 10 20 30

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ .. UU.. U....., S II ..................

40

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e500-103

0:

@ DFxeg

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

& • U .....aa amIM , #. ................,

85
3.3

'---I UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e500-104

luuu.

-J

@3

A5.. @3 II-

-J

@3

z

gao

700

800

500

400

300

200

100

0

I

I

"• Nff......•'..............

x ..... ".% .:•'""X' % ... ........ "'" .... •,,.,,,,,,.... "'"•,,, . .. ........... ,,,,,,,,,,,,. . '".. -.... . ......

, t? I I r T I I i i ! i • • i , i i t ,

0 lO 20

Distance from Quench Front /

@ ..M.M ..... @ • x .........

ydraulic Diameter

40

@x X

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA e500-104

0

U

Cd

a

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@•.mm ..

86
UKAEA-WINFRITH 399

-I

@3

@3

0

I-@3 1.~

-I

@3

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

MM .... RM MM

0

UKAEA-WINFRr 399

0,9

0.8

0.7

0.6 x

0.5

0.1.

.... ....... ..... ...... i . .. ..... .......

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 s0 90

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

100

@®DOMxx a.n MM .......... ..

87
UKAEA-WINFRITH 400

.1,

I-I

~1

'U

0

U

0

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@..mm.... .. . .. ,to.

UKAEA-WINFRITH 400

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@xWxx @ .. ..... I....... , .......

88
3'

3' UKAEA-WINFRITH 401

V

I-

:E

"too

900 _______ _

Goo i 500 ____

400

20 Nair Ma a .elllsem. ......

t00

I~ill

IO

0 I ~& L **~**.''~ ''*'~*** 1 ~ L ~ I I ~ I A

0 10 Mo 30 40 60 60 70 ea 90

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

I I H 0 I .• a a 0 a a nll.lamlli l.......l..l.ll. ..

UKAEA-WINFRITH 401

0

I

@OPxxx

Distance from Quench Front / Hj

iM NMmeeunlnlllMU I nllllnll

89
3 UKAEA-WINFRITH 402

1WOO . - F - I

i

900

800

7800

J500

300

200

100

I ____________________________ __________..........______..........._____

Am A1p1 1 1 " t 00,

M-111 ma

0

10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 go

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

100

@ DRFM x x x x x x ®~e~xx U U U U S @ Gis&IIW41 S~wmi ...............

0a

LuKAEA-WINFRIT 402

1.c 0

0.9

0.7

0.8 ___

0.4 ____

0.3

02 .....

~ ,.,,su *qsnSSSSSISSS10",S-SSS"

0 .1~w .*U 0 1; * U A 

U 20 30 40 50 70 80 9o

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

100

amSSSSm¶SSSSSMS ur@u 

90
UKAEA-WINFRITH 403

-j

U

U

IGi I.-

-J

Cu

0)

30 40 50 60 70 50 90

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

)@-'S .... a M a.. a a .

Lo0

a

I

.5

UKAEA-WINFRIT 403

0.~

0.7 _ _ __ _ _

x

0.4

0.2 x ...... ~ IIbU~

*t1121"llIIIlul s6a6gsmssugsgg 18" sa %5 Mammas *

0.1 avIa~ a ............

__ _ _ ' . s , . ... ......., I ......... I .. . . . . . . . . . . .A

0 10 30 40 50 60 70 50 90

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@ O% . . @ .. KM..... .. . .,,,,

10o

@ opumm

91
3

3 UKAEA-WINFRITH 404

I

I

-J

'U

V

900_ _ _ _

700_ _

400 - 4v_ _ _ _ _ _ _

200'_

100

10 .. ... ...

a 10 20 w3 40 50 60 70 80 90

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

100

®@DRMM EWE MM

UKAEA-WINFRITH 404

0

0

1.0 1

0.1* - __

0.7 _

0.4 - _ _ x _ _

0.1 Um3aIW ~~m~ga S*IISSI ,.~uui' 1 sSSUU U

(1 xUUWeE 

~ m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0 - ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ Il a~ hI~JIIJJLJ& ,.,, ~ *~*'',,.

U 10 ZO 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

100

®DSMW @MMMMW IS aU* 8

92
UKAEA-WINFRITH 405

-j

V

8

aV

6~2

-J

V

0

I

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

Dam 

a a a a 

NM a U a a a .

a 1* 18410

RV@

UKAEA-WINFRITH 405

30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

x xx B -m B U U U U B U I • I. OII' OImgIgIIPgu,4OmSeauOmm

93
3I] UKAEA-WVINFRITH 412

lutzS - U - - U - * -

U- UI.. I

-a

CU

@1

900

800

700

800

500

400

300

200

100

0

I~ ___________ ~ ___________ ___________ ___________ _________

I ___ _________&

I ___ _____ ___ _____ _____ _ ......... __

0 10 20 40 50 60 70 80 90

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

100

@ msuwx @ NO 1401 Man 0 M 0M I FM MM

UKAEA-WINFIUTH 412

0

Ci

0

~U.

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@CRO . .•.••. m nPRM. 3M

94
I

3 UKAEA-WINFRITH 413

CS

E1

ccS

IW

Boo

700 ,

600

:I:

500 :

400

300 1!"'±U~~_ _

1.00

0 ''*** : LL** .... 6W .... ***' .1 J .I . ... L . ...

0 10 20 30 40 60 6o 7I 90 loCN0 

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

UKAEA-WINFRITH 413 1.c0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5 x

0.4

0.3 .,. ,,,,..... ..

...... •qrSalutS*5t iLi l S UESI 

i-m-..2-ull ..

0.l1 kI •*ieoI 'M5l lO S _l____e ___II

0- L

0 b•rL..LL aJL. *~*' .L.Z I~.. '**~ ~..

0

2

.5

0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 50 90

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

WGIMI a aln Ia• Ula 

100

x xx

95
I UKAEA-WINFRITH 414 IU~Aw - - - - - - - - - I -

0

•M

v

500

700

So0

I0 500 i4 Ux x x x

I x

ImIQ~~~l l -l miDO 300 ._ ...... _

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1OC

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

UKAEA-WINFRITH 414

i)e - --- -

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 n,•.n * + "-"

0.2 -....... _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _

l Itllnll i •U I. I

0.2+, ,,,,,': *+'+" *.,:,* ,. ... ,- ..... ,.* *~Illl,.-.,,,. .. .. . ...-- , ,...__

o ........ I ......... I " . ......... I ...... - .1 ......... I ... A&6WAI" A"A"

1O 20 30 40 50 60 70 o0 90 100

Distance from Quench Front / Hydraulic Diameter

@..•..O...... @A ,I ............ @ DSM" x x x x x x

96
NRC FORM 335 U.3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(2-A sgned by NRC, Add Vol. Supp., Rev.

3201.3c0 tBIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See kafrua on " tram) NUREGIA-0133

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE CAMP004

Development, Implementation, and Assessment of Specific 3 D REPORT PUBLSHED

Closure Laws for Inverted-Annular Film-Boiling

in a Two-Fluid Model MONTH I YAR

October 1996

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

W6238

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

Francois de Cachard Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED ockire Doom)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS gNRC.N pwi o Dtvison, Oice araRegio U.S. NuM/e RegulebyCommwisioend mai/ing dd*reSa" Nwcb

provide name and m7iing addres.)

Thermal-Hydarulics Laboratory

Paul Scherrer Institute

CH-5232 Villigen PSI

Switzerland

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION -NAME AND ADDRESS IT'r- "p•ome as abowl ffom&*-irprvv~d&RC~v~ Oftaoeoror Regibn U.&. Aucbwe RgubJory Caemesi.

and meraeddmssj

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

S. Smith, NRC Project Manager

11. ABSTRACT M2o wads or Ws)

Inverted-Annular Film-Boiling (IAFB) Is one of the post-burnout heat transfer modes taking place during the reflooding phase of the

loss-of-coolant accident, when the liquids at the quench front is subcooled. Under IAFB conditions, a continuous liquid core is

separated from the wall by a superheated vapour film. A key Issue in IAFB modeling is to predict how the heat flux reaching the

vapour-liquid interface is split into a liquid heating term and a vaporization term. In the model proposed, convective liquid heating is

related to the liquid velocity relative to the interface and not the absolute liquid velocity, as In previous models.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (Lgt words or phrases iat w Massist researchenrI hocatg •e port) 13. AVALABLY STArEMENT

CAMP unlimited

RELAP5/MOD3 14. SECURfrY CLASSFICA1ON

(This gAm)

unclassified

(Thi Rpet)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NR FOM3521)Ti omwseeto~al wdcdb ~.FdIsFan.h. NRC FORM 335 (2419) This lorm was elactonloW produced by Efte FederW Fan hy-
Federal Recycling Program

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

SPECIAL STANDARD MAIL

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

USNRC

PERMIT NO. G-67

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300