modeling fluidelastic instability of two-phase flow in
TRANSCRIPT
Modeling Fluidelastic Instability of Two-Phase
Flow in Tube Bundles
byYasser Selima
A Thesispresented to
The University of Guelph
In partial fulfillment of requirementsfor the degree of
Doctor of Philosophyin
Engineering
Guelph, Ontario, Canadac©Yasser Selima, September, 2018
ABSTRACT
MODELING FLUIDELASTIC INSTABILITY OF TWO-PHASE
FLOW IN TUBE BUNDLES
Yasser Selima Advisors:
University of Guelph, 2018 Dr. Marwan Hassan
Dr. Atef Mohany
Dr. Wael Ahmed
The CANDU steam generator consists of tube bundles where two phase flow across the
bundle takes place. Among many tube vibration mechanisms, the FluidElastic Instability
(FEI) is considered the most destructive one. Many studies focused on FEI of two phase
flow. However, there is no analytical model until now able to predict FEI threshold velocity.
This study presents a novel analytical framework to predict the fluidelastic instability
threshold of two phase flow across normal square bundle. The model focuses on the bubbly
flow (void fractions up to 35%). A single vibrating tube in a fixed bundle was considered.
Flow around the vibrating tube is idealized as one dimensional bubbly flow in two channels.
The fluid in each channel is composed of continuous phase and dispersed phase. The dis-
persed phase is accounted for by spherical bubbles. The motion of each individual bubble
was modeled by accounting for the external forces acting on its surface. Bubble-to-bubble
interaction, bubble break-up, and bubbles coalescence were taken into account. Bubble re-
sponse to the pressure pulsations was integrated in the model by solving Rayleigh-Plesset
equation. By tracking each bubble in the flow channels, it is possible to calculate the change
in the flow density around the tube. The calculated instantaneous local density is used to
solve the unsteady conservation equations to find the fluid forces on the vibrating tube. The
tube is then modeled as a single degree of freedom system to predict its displacement. The
feedback mechanism of the tube on the fluid was then modeled.
Time domain simulations were conducted for air-water mixture and the stability threshold
was predicted. Prediction of the stability threshold showed a very promising results when
compared with the experimental data. A sensitivity study is performed on the model to test
its limitations is presented.
iv
Dedication
To my Mum and Dad,
without you, I would not be able to continue ...
v
Acknowledgements
First of all, thanks to Allah.
Special thanks to Dr. Marwan Hassan for his help, support, and patience during the
most difficult times.
I would like to thank my co-advisors, Dr. Atef Mohany and Dr. Wael Ahmed for the
advise and help provided during this research.
To my wife, Marwa Ragab, thank you for your patience and support during the last few
years.
Thanks to my colleges, Amro Elhelaly, Salim Elbouzaidi, John cloutier and Osama El-
banhawy for the good moments we shared.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents viii
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xii
Abbreviations xiii
Symbols xiv
Greek Symbols xv
List of Appendices xvi
1 Introduction 11.1 Flow Induced Vibration (FIV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Classification of FIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 Stability versus Instability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Cross Flow Heat Exchangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 Fluidelastic Instability (FEI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 Ouline of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Literature Review 72.1 Tube bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.2 Fluidelastic Instability Models for single phase flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1 Jet Switch Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.2.2 Quasi-Static Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.2.3 Unsteady Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
vii
2.2.4 Quasi-Steady Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152.2.5 Flow Cell Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 Modeling of two phase flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.3.1 Flow patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.1.1 Flow patterns in tube bundle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.3.2 Models of two phase flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.2.1 Two fluid model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.3.2.2 Homogeneous model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.3.2.3 Slip model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.3.2.4 Void fraction model of Dowlati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262.3.2.5 Drift flux model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4 Two-phase bubbly flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.4.1 Bubbles Coalescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.4.2 Bubbles breakup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4.2.1 Breakup due to turbulent fluctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322.4.2.2 Breakup due to the viscous shear forces . . . . . . . . . . . 322.4.2.3 Breakup due to shearing-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322.4.2.4 Breakup due to interfacial instability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4.3 CFD modeling of bubbly flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.5 FEI in two phase flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.5.1 Two-phase flow damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382.5.2 Modeling FEI in two phase flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.6 Summary and research needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3 Modelling 443.1 Overview of the analytical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453.2 Structural dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463.3 Continuous phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483.4 Dispersed phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.4.1 Bubbles generation algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533.4.2 Forces acting on the bubble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.4.2.1 Lift force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563.4.2.2 Drag force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603.4.2.3 Buoyancy force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4.3 Bubble kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613.4.4 Bubble-to-bubble impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623.4.5 Bubble bouncing from the wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643.4.6 Bubbles coalescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643.4.7 Bubble breakup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663.4.8 Bubble compressibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.5 Fluid structure interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
viii
4 Model Implementation 724.1 Conservation equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734.2 Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754.3 Bubble loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.3.1 Solution of Rayleigh-Plesset equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764.3.2 Coalescence and breakup procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.4 Steady State Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5 Results and Discussion 855.1 Homogeneous model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895.2 Current model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.2.1 Stability threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915.2.2 FEI Force acting on the tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945.2.3 Density distribution in the flow channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.3 Sensitivity studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955.3.1 Effect of initial bubble size distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965.3.2 Effect of initial bubbles size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005.3.3 Effect of time step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025.3.4 Effect of including bubble compressibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.4 Effect of Breakup and Coalescence criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055.4.1 Effect of size breakup criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055.4.2 Coalescence criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.5 Model Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075.5.1 FEI Threshold (Critical flow Velocity): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.6 Slip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085.7 Effect of density ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125.8 Effect of P/D ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6 Conclusion 1196.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196.2 Recommendations for future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
References 123
A Dimensional Analysis of Rayliegh Plesset equation 130
ix
List of Tables
2.1 Summary of the stability threshold suggested by [82] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1 Streamtube parameters for normal square bundle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1 Simulation conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875.2 The stability threshold velocities for both beta and normal distributions . . . 995.3 The effect of the minimum bubble radius at the bubble generation stage on
the stability threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015.4 The effect of timestep on the stability threshold velocity . . . . . . . . . . . 1035.5 The effect of bubble compressibility on the stability threshold velocity . . . . 1055.6 The effect of forced breakup criteria on the stability threshold velocity . . . . 1075.7 The effect of coalescence criteria on the stability threshold velocity . . . . . . 1105.8 Comparison between the stability threshold velocity obtained by the current
model and the experimental data reported by Pettigrew et al 1989 [61] . . . 1115.9 The initial input pressure used to obtain the density ratio . . . . . . . . . . . 1135.10 The effect of density ratio on the stability threshold velocity . . . . . . . . . 1175.11 The effect of P/D ratio on the stability threshold velocity . . . . . . . . . . . 118
x
List of Figures
1.1 Diagrammatic sketch of CANDU steam generator, Moran 2007 [50] . . . . . 41.2 Relation between the vibration amplitude and the flow velocity, Paıdoussis et
al. [56] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.3 Tube damage caused by FEI, (a), (b) and (c) shows the effects of fretting
wear at the supports (source AECL - currently CNL). (d) damage causedby a broken piece of a tube before hitting another tube (UKAEA Harwell),photos published by Khalifa 2013 [37] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Tube bundle configurations. (a) Normal square. (b) Normal triangle. (c)Rotated square. and (d) Parallel triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 FEI maps for various array geometry proposed by [82]. (a)Normal square.(b)Rotated square. (c)Normal triangle. and (d)Parallel triangle, [82] . . . . 12
2.3 Cylinder numbering system employed by Tanaka and Takahara 1980 [78] . . 152.4 Flow visualizations showing stream tubes in a cross flow, [43] . . . . . . . . 172.5 Unit cell for fluid elastic model, [28] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.6 Comparison between flow cell model and experimental results [42] . . . . . . 182.7 Schematic of flow patterns in vertical upward gas liquid co-current flow, [11] 212.8 Hewitt and Roberts flow-pattern map for vertical upward gas-liquid co-current
flow. G is the mass flux, and ρ is the density. [30] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222.9 Flow-pattern map for vertical flow in tube bundle, [80] . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.10 Flow-pattern map for vertical in tube bundle, [52] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.11 Sketch of film stretching and bubble surface flattening for two bubbles ap-
proaching each other, [49] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282.12 Critical capillary number in simple shear flow [45] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312.13 Map of the three phases used in the coupled model, [83] . . . . . . . . . . . 342.14 Stability map for two phase flow based on the homogeneous model, [50] . . 372.15 Stability map for two phase flow based on the interfacial velocity and measured
RAD density, [50] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382.16 Comparison of normalized two phase damping from different studies by [60] 402.17 Stability threshold map obtained from the two-phase flow unsteady forces
simulations and direct flow/structure coupling vs. experimental data fromPettigrew (1989) for airwater flow, [72] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
xi
3.1 Visual observation of streamtubes flowing through normal square tube bundle,[43] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2 Streamtubes surrounding the vibrating tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503.3 A schematic sketch showing the beta distribution function . . . . . . . . . . 533.4 Forces acting on each bubble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553.5 Streamlines of steady flow (from left to right) past a sphere at various Reynolds
numbers, Taneda 1956 (reported by Brennen 1995 [5]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573.6 Values of Strouhal at different Reynolds number [73] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593.7 Elastic Impact between bubbles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.1 Screen shot from the simulations showing the vibrating tube (blue) surroundedby the flow channels. The channel oscillating boundary is shown in red . . . 73
4.2 Diagrammatic sketch showing the flowchart of the simulation . . . . . . . . . 774.3 Diagrammatic sketch showing the flowchart of the bubble loop . . . . . . . . 784.4 Response of bubble radius to a sinusoidal pressure wave. Time step = 10−10sec 804.5 Snapshots from the simulation showing bubble breakup . . . . . . . . . . . . 824.6 Snapshots from the simulation showing bubble coalescence . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.1 Tube response for 25% void fraction at various flow velocity using the homo-geneous density model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.2 Tube response for 25% void fraction at various flow velocity using the currentmodel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.3 Tube response for 68% void fraction, from Moran 2007 [50] . . . . . . . . . . 935.4 Comparison between the stability map obtained by the current model and by
the homogeneous model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935.5 Tube displacement and fluid forces on the tube vs. time, Uavg = 1.2m/s and
α = 25% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955.6 Tube displacement and fluid forces on the tube vs. time, Uavg = 1m/s and
α = 25% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965.7 Tube displacement and fluid forces on the tube vs. time, Uavg = 1m/s and
α = 32% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975.8 Average density in the channel vs. the time at different locations. (a)Left
channel s = 0 (tube center), (b) Right channel s = 0 (tube center); (c)Leftchannel s = −so
2; (d)Right channel s = −so
2; (e)Left channel s = −so
4; (f)Right
channel s = −so4
; (g)Left channel s = −so (tube entrance) ; (h)Right channels = −so (tube entrance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.9 Effect of initial bubble distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005.10 Effect of initial bubble size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025.11 Effect of time step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045.12 Effect of gas compressibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065.13 Effect of using different different forced breakup criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085.14 Effect of using different different coalescence criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
xii
5.15 Comparison between the results obtained from the current model with exper-iments Pettigrew et al. 1989a [61] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.16 Comparison between the slip factor obtained by the current model and thecalculated slip using Feenstra’s model [19] applied on the experimental resultsby Pettigrew et al. 1989a[61] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.17 Effect of the density ratio on the stability threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1145.18 Effect of P/D ratio on the stability threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
xiii
Abbreviations
FEI FluidElastic Instability
FIV Flow Induced Vibration
MDP Mass Daming Parameter
xiv
Symbols
M Tube total mass per unit length including the added massx Tube displacementζ Damping ratiofn Bundle natural frequency in the two phase mixturek Tube stifnessFFEI Fluidelastic instability forceBo Bond numberCL Coefficient of Lift forceCD Coefficient of Drag forceCa Capillary numberD Tube diameterDb Bubble diameterf FrequencyFr Froude numberFB Buoyancy force.FD Drag forceFL Lift forceG mass fluxJ Volume fluxM Effective tube massm Tube mass per unit lengthma Added massP Center to center pitchRe Reynold’s numberRi Richardson numberS Slip ratioSt Strouhal numberUp Pitch velocityUr Relative VelocityWe Weber numberVf gas Volume fractionX Bubble horizontal location in a vertical channelX Bubble vertical location in a vertical channel
xv
Greek Symbols
ω angular frequencyα Volume fractionδ Damping logarithmic decreamentρl, ρg Density of Liquid, Gasµl Liquid viscousityν Kinamatic viscosityσ Surface tensionφrandom Random phase angleζ Structure damping ratio
xvi
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Dimensional Analysis of Rayliegh Plesset equation
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Flow Induced Vibration (FIV)
Flow Induced Vibration (FIV) is the phenomena when mechanical vibration starts due to
fluid flow. The fluctuations of leaves in a windy day, and the vibration of wires are examples
of FIV. This phonemna occurs in many industries and engineering applications as well. This
obstructs the smooth operation of these applications and cause deviation from the optimal
design conditions. In some cases this could cause disasterous damage. For example, the
collapse of Tacoma bridge in 1940 was caused by vibrations induced by fluid flow or FIV.
Another recent example is the permenant closure of San Onfore Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS) in 2013. The latter example will be mentioned few times in this thesis.
The physical explanation of FIV could be summerized very briefly as vibration caused by
the fluid forces acting on a certain structure. In some cases, the fluid forces are unsteady in
nature, such as the turbulence forces. These unsteady forces would apply a periodic force on
the structure causing periodic motion; i.e. vibrations. However, even the steady flow would
cause FIV in many cases. This happens because of the existence of a feedback mechanism
from the structure acting back on the fluid. The feedback in this case causes this periodic
1
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
force of the fluid on the structure pushing it to vibrate. From here, there was a need to
classify the FIV according to its cause and/or mechanism to enable avoiding its damage.
1.1.1 Classification of FIV
Many classification were available in the literature to distinguish the various types of FIV.
Weaver and Fitzpatrick 1988 [82] classified the FIV by the nature of vibration in each case.
1. Forced vibration, in which the excitation fluid force is independant on the structure.
This is the case of turbulent beffeting.
2. Self-controlled vibrations, in which vibration is controlled by the structure. This is the
case of vortex shedding.
3. Self-excited vibration, in which the excitation force that sustains the motion is created
by the motion itself; when the motion stops the excitation force disappears. This is
the case of Fluidelastic Instability (FEI) which is the focus of this thesis.
1.2 Stability versus Instability
A simple definetion of stability will be used in this work, is when the vibration amplitude
reduces to approach zero. If the amplitude doesn’t approach zero, but it is still bounded,
i.e. marginally stable, it will be considered stable. Instability will be considered when the
vibration amplitude keeps increasing with time.
1.3 Cross Flow Heat Exchangers
Heat exchangers are devices used to allow heat transfer from one fluid to another. There are
many types and classifications of heat exchangers. In this thesis, the focus will be on cross
2
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
flow heat exchangers, specifically the CANDU reactor steam generator. In general, Cross
flow heat exchangers are widely used in many applications such as steam generators and
condensers. It consists of thousands of tubes forming a tube bundle where one fluid flows
inside the tubes while another fluid flows across the bundle. The CANDU reactor’s design
includes a steam generator to transfer the heat from the primary contaminated cooling water
to the secondary cooler. Figure (1.1) shows a diagrammatic sketch of the type CANDU steam
generator. The primary coolant, coming from the reactor, passes inside the U-tubes while
the secondary coolant passes across the tubes. To prevent exceeding the radiation limit, it is
mandatory to monitor and control the leakage from the primary to secondary coolant. This
means that the heat exchanger design should take into account the sources of tube wear and
vibration trying to avoid them.
Increasing the performance of the heat exchangers requires increasing the mass flow rate
and the heat transfer surface area to the maximum possible values. This leads to using
several thousand long tubes (several meters long) with relatively small outer diameters (less
than 2 centimeters). Due to tube thermal expansion at the high operating temperatures,
using tight tube supports becomes a very difficult and expensive task and usually the heat
exchanger ends up with many tubes on loose supports. When the cross flow fluid apply
forces normal to these tubes, they start to vibrate with their natural frequency.
1.4 Fluidelastic Instability (FEI)
Among the vibration excitation mechanisms occurs in heat exchangers, FEI is considered the
most destructive mechanism. Figure 1.2 shows the relation between the vibration amplitude
and the flow velocity for these excitation mechanisms. From the figure we can see that
turbulence buffeting starts at low velocity with an amplitude of vibration proportional to the
flow velocity. This mechanism could not be avoided in the design as the turbulence is needed
3
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 1.1: Diagrammatic sketch of CANDU steam generator, Moran 2007 [50]
to enhance the heat transfer. However, the vibration amplitude due to turbulence buffeting
does not reach large destructive values. Second exciting mechanism, vortex shedding, starts
when Strouhal frequency is close to the bundle natural frequency. The amplitude of vibration
resulting from vortex shedding is higher than that from turbulent buffeting. By avoiding
the velocity range that excite the vortex shedding, vibration due to this mechanism could
be avoided.
The third excitation mechanism, Fluidelastic Instability (FEI), starts at a certain flow
velocity called “critical velocity”. When exceeding this critical velocity, vibrations due to
FEI start and the vibration amplitude increases exponentially with increasing flow velocity.
Unless a physical restrain such as impacting another tube, the FEI vibration amplitude
4
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 1.2: Relation between the vibration amplitude and the flow velocity, Paıdoussis etal. [56]
never goes down. FEI causes tube-tube clashing and/or tubes impact with supports which
is enough to damage the tubes in few days. Figure 1.3 show some samples of the damage
occured by FEI.
1.5 Ouline of the thesis
The next Chapter 2 will discuss the research published in the area showing the gap to be
covered by this work. Chapters (3) and (4) will explain the current model and sub-models
showing how they were integrated in one code to run the simulations. The Results will be
presented and discussed in chapter (5). The last chapter (6) will summerize the work done,
pointing out the conclusions and recommendations for future work.
5
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 1.3: Tube damage caused by FEI, (a), (b) and (c) shows the effects of fretting wearat the supports (source AECL - currently CNL). (d) damage caused by a broken piece of atube before hitting another tube (UKAEA Harwell), photos published by Khalifa 2013 [37]
6
Chapter 2
Literature Review
There are three different flow induced vibration mechanisms that occur in cross flow heat
exchangers; The first is turbulent buffeting which could be classified as forced vibration
mechanism. Second, is the vortex shedding mechanism which could be categorized as self
controlled mechanism. The third is fluidelastic instability (FEI) mechanism which is con-
sidered self excitation mechanism. Among these mechanisms, FEI is considered the most
destructive mechanism which could cause tube failure in a short period of time. Because of
its destructive nature, FEI was the focus of many experimental and analytical research.
There are many theories in the literature trying to explain the physics behind the FEI
mechanism. The most realistic one is that FEI starts by a vibrating tube applying force
on the surrounding fluid which reacts by applying forces back on the tube. Because of the
fluid elasticity a time lag occurs between the tube and fluid forces, Lever and Weaver 1986
[41, 42]. This time lag causes a phase shift between the tube displacement and the fluid
forces. Therefore, the fluid force component acting in the direction of the tube displacement
acts as an excitation force trying to increase the vibration amplitude. When the system
damping is not able to dissipate this vibration energy, the vibration amplitude increases
causing severe damages.
7
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Because fluidelastic instability occurs only in tube arrays, the first section 2.1 will present
the basic types of tube bundles used in steam generators. The FEI models for single phase
flow will then be introduced in section 2.2. Section 2.3 will summarize the two phase flow
models in various flow regimes before focusing on the bubbly flow in section 2.4. Section 2.5
will present the work done to model FEI of two phase flow in tube array. A summary of the
research findings will be introduced in section 2.6 focusing on the research gabs need to be
filled.
2.1 Tube bundles
The purpose of heat exchangers, is to transfer the heat between two fluids. One of the
factors affecting the heat transfer positively, is the heat transfer area. Tube bundles provide
large heat transfer area per unit volume enabling more compact design of the heat exchang-
ers. That is why they are widely used in heat exchangers, especially steam generators and
condensers.
The tube bundle arrangement could be inline, or staggered. Usually staggered config-
urations uses the angles 30, 45 or 60 degrees between a tube and its neighbor. The inline
arrangement uses inline straight rows of tubes. The staggered arrays provide higher coef-
ficient of heat transfer because they generate more turbulence in the flow field. The FEI
research identify these various configurations as summarized by Weaver and Fitzpatrick 1988
[82]; normal square, rotated square, normal triangle and rotated triangle. Figure 2.1 shows
the various configurations of tube bundles.
The tube-to-tube distance is identified as the pitch P . The pitch to diameter ratio is
one of the key factors in the heat exchangers. Large P/D will increase the volume of the
heat exchanger for the same heat transfer area. On the other hand, P/D is restricted by a
minimum value of 1.25. Lower values of P/D makes the portion of the material between two
8
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.1: Tube bundle configurations. (a) Normal square. (b) Normal triangle. (c)Rotated square. and (d) Parallel triangle
adjacent tubes, too weak for proper rolling of the tubes in tube sheet, Thulukkanam 2013
[79]. In most heat exchangers, the pitch to diameter ratio ranges between 1.25 to 1.7. In the
CANDU steam generator, the value of P/D is around 1.5.
As shown earlier in Fig. 1.1, the tubes in the CANDU steam generator take the shape
of inverted U. The cold fluid, uncontaminated water, passes through the shell side of the
CANDU steam generator. It enters from the bottom of the steam generator to be heated by
the pressurized heavy water flowing inside the tubes. As the cold water flows up, it gains
more heat and evaporation occurs. More steam is generated as the flow gains more heat. The
volumetric ratio of the gas phase (steam) to the liquid phase (water) is called void fraction.
At the top of the steam generator, the water mixture void fraction reaches around 95%.
The most critical part in the steam generator is the U bend region at the top of the tubes.
In this U bend region, the flow becomes cross flow. In addition, the mixture velocity reaches
maximum values because of the very high void fraction. While loose supports exist in this
9
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
region and a tube could be supported on one loose support, the tube acts as a cantilever
supported from one end. For this reason, most of the experimental and theoretical models
uses cantilevers instead of U bend to simplify the setup and/or the model.
2.2 Fluidelastic Instability Models for single phase flow
The recognition of FEI instability started by Roberts 1962 and 1966 [69, 70] when he found
the possibility of self excited vibration of a staggered row of cylinders. Roberts explained
the phenomena by jet switching where a jet pairing between adjacent cylinders, changes its
direction in synchronism with the vibration of the cylinder motions. Roberts presented the
dimensionless reduced velocity parameter Ur as:
Ur =U
fD(2.1)
where U is the pitch velocity, f is the oscillation frequency and D is the tube diameter.
Roberts 1962 [69] suggested that this jet switching mechanism would only occur if Ur is
larger than 12. Roberts found that the instability only happens if the two adjacent cylinders
were free to move in the in-flow direction.
Later, Connors 1970 [14] conducted experiments on a single row of cylinders as well
and proposed a modification for the above instability criteria. Connors proposed a semi-
empirical relation for the instability reduced flow velocity as a function of the dimensionless
mass damping parameter (MDP). MDP was identified as function of the tube mass per unit
length m, the damping δ, fluid density ρ and the tube diameter D. Connor’s semi-empirical
relation is as follows:
UpfD
= K
(mδ
pD2
)n(2.2)
10
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
where K and n are experimental constants and they were suggested by Connors to be
9.9 and 0.5 respectively. Up is the pitch flow velocity. In a review paper, Paıdoussis 1983 [55]
presented a comparison between Connors 1970 [14] model and Roberts 1962 [69] equation
and other experimental results and showed that the two theories are relatively close for the
studied range.
Blevins 1997 [4] extended Connors model to deal with multiple rows of tubes keeping the
same form of Eq. 2.2. Many experimental studies followed trying to find suitable values for
the constants K and n for different configurations of tube bundles. Chen et al. 1985 [10]
published guidelines for the instability threshold. Weaver and Fitzpatrick 1988 [82] reviewed
the cross flow induced vibrations and attempted to standardize the parameters used to draw
the FEI maps. Weaver and Fitzpatrick 1988 [82] presented flow maps for different patterns
of tube bundles using the pitch flow velocity Up = (P/(P −D))U , and the damping in air δa,
see Fig. 2.2. Weaver and Fitzpatrick 1988 [82] suggested a horizontal line in the flow maps
for values of mδa/ρD2 < 0.3. For higher mass damping parameter, the authors suggested
values for K and n as shown in table 2.1. The authors explained the horizontal lines as
for low flow velocity, the tube velocity is no longer negligible when compared to the fluid
velocity. The drag force, which applies in the same direction of the relative velocity, will
then have a component that opposes the tube motion.
The following few sections will present briefly the leading models to account for the FEI.
2.2.1 Jet Switch Model
Analytical or semi-empirical models of FEI took place as early as it was identified by Roberts
1962 [69]. As discussed earlier, Roberts [69, 70] proposed the first model for self-excitation in
tube bundle, or fluidelastic instability. Roberts showed that instability occurs in the in-flow
direction with adjacent cylinders moving out of phase with each other.
11
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.2: FEI maps for various array geometry proposed by [82]. (a)Normal square.(b)Rotated square. (c)Normal triangle. and (d)Parallel triangle, [82]
12
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Table 2.1: Summary of the stability threshold suggested by [82]
Array geometry mδaρD2 < 0.3 mδa
ρD2 < 0.3
Square Up
fD= 1.4 Up
fD= 2.5(mδa
ρD2 )0.48
Rotated square Up
fD= 2.2 Up
fD= 4.0(mδa
ρD2 )0.48
Normal triangle Up
fD= 2.0 Up
fD= 3.2(mδa
ρD2 )0.40
Parallel triangle Up
fD= 1.0 Up
fD= 4.8(mδa
ρD2 )0.30
Because only in-flow motion was allowed, Roberts suggested that a hypothetical channel
flow involving two half cylinders and imaginary boundary, can represent the flow in tube
bundle, Price 1985 [63]. The FEI was returned to the switching of the fluid jet between two
adjacent tubes. Roberts concluded that one flexible tube in a tightly fixed bundle, can go
unstable.
2.2.2 Quasi-Static Model
This is the most famous model to predict fluidelastic instability threshold and it is being used
currently in the ASME code for heat exchanger design. The model was derived by Connors
1970 [14] and same equation was concluded by Blevins 1997 [4]. Connors considered a
single row of cylinders normal to the flow and measured the fluid forces experimentally.
By Statically displacing two neighboring cylinders in symmetric or antisymmetric directions
while measuring the forces on the central cylinders. Connors reported different cylinder
vibration patterns. The most dominant pattern was a cylinder vibrating in elliptical motion.
Connors concluded that jet switch, reported by Roberts 1962 and 1966 [69, 70], was not
the dominant cause of instability. By Measuring the fluid stiffness, and applying energy
13
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
balance in the cross flow and parallel flow directions, Connors obtained the famous Eq.
(2.2). Connors found the value of K tends to be 9.9 and n to be 0.5.
Although Eq. (2.2) was derived for a constant pitch to diameter ratio P/D = 1.41, it is
being used until today, with different values of the constants K and n, in the ASME code.
The reason behind using Connors equation until today is its simplicity compared to the
models derived later. This despite the fact that it was proven later by Lever Lever and
Weaver 1982 [43] that one loose tube could be instable in a fixed array which contradicts
with Connors assumptions. Also Connors equation did not take into account the bundle
geometry or the pitch to diameter ratio.
2.2.3 Unsteady Model
This model was presented by Chen 1983 [8, 9] who used the unsteady forces measured by
Tanaka and Takahara 1980 [78]. The later assumed that the fluid forces acting on the tube
are function of its own motion and the motion of the surrounding cylinders. For example,
the forces affecting cylinder O in Fig. 2.3 is function of cylinders R, L, D and U. Then, the
forces acting on cylinder O was expressed by Eq. (2.3)
4CL = CLyo ∗ yo + CLyL ∗ (yL + yR) + CLxL ∗ (xL − xR) + CLyU ∗ yU + CLyD ∗ yD
4CD = CLxo ∗ xo + CDyL ∗ (yL − yR) + CDxL ∗ (xL + xR) + CDxU ∗ xU + CDxD ∗ xD(2.3)
The measured forces coefficients were employed by Chen 1983a [8] as an experimental
input to predict the forces acting on the tube and predict the stability. Chen also showed
that instability could happen by one of two mechanisms, damping controlled or stiffness
controlled insatiability.
Although the unsteady model was able to predict fluidelastic instability successfully, it
14
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.3: Cylinder numbering system employed by Tanaka and Takahara 1980 [78]
has a major disadvantage which is using many experimental parameters as input to the
model.
2.2.4 Quasi-Steady Model
In the quasi-steady model, the forces acting on a cylinder, in the lift and the drag directions,
are modified according to the cylinder relative velocity. The lift and drag coefficients remain
the same as calculated on stationary cylinders while the fluid relative velocity with respect to
the cylinders changes with its absolute velocity. According to Price 1995 [63], this assumption
is reasonable when the cylinder velocity is small compared to the fluid velocity. However,
when the cylinder vibrational velocity is comparable to the fluid velocity, the assumption
breaks down.
Gross in 1975 (reported by Price 1995 [63] ) was the first to introduce the quasi-static
model for flow across tube bundle, Price 1995 [63]. Gross returned the instability to a
negative damping mechanism. Briefly, this mechanism assumes that a negative damping
15
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
component resulting from FEI is affecting the total system damping. The magnitude of this
negative component increases when increasing the flow velocity. At certain flow velocity, the
total system damping becomes negative and instability proceeds.
Price and Paıdoussis introduced a series of papers Price and Paıdoussis 1984, 1985 and
1986 [66, 64, 65] on the quasi-steady model. They assumed that the fluid coefficients depend
on the displacements of the neighboring tubes causing a fully coupling between a row of
flexible cylinders. They also considered a constrained mode approach to eliminate the effect
of this coupling. The main problem with using the quasi-steady approach is calculating the
force coefficients which could be done computationally.
2.2.5 Flow Cell Model
The flow cell model was introduced by Lever and Weaver 1982 [43] and adapted by Lever
and Weaver 1986 [41, 42]. Based on flow visualizations and experimental results, the authors
concluded that the flow across tube bundle could be simplified to a flow through stream
tubes, Fig. 2.4. The authors introduced a one dimensional inviscid flow model through
streamtubes in an array with single flexible cylinder, Fig. 2.5. When the flexible cylinder
moves, the streamtube area would change. The fluid neighboring the moving cylinder was
assumed to vibrate with the cylinder (no phase lag between the cylinder and the fluid lying
between attachment and separation). Because of fluid inertia, a time lag between the tube
motion and the resulting change in the streamtube width takes place. This time lag was
thought to cause a phase between the fluid forces and the tube response leading to vibration
instability.
The authors compared the model to experimental results and well agreements were ob-
tained. Khalifa et al. 2013 [38] compared their expeiremntal results with the model showing
well agreement as well, Fig. 2.6. Lever and Weaver 1986 [41, 42] reported the existence of the
16
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.4: Flow visualizations showing stream tubes in a cross flow, [43]
Figure 2.5: Unit cell for fluid elastic model, [28]
17
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.6: Comparison between flow cell model and experimental results [42]
multiple stability region at low mass damping parameters. In general, the flow cell model
showed accurate predictions of the stability threshold for low mass damping parameters.
However, as the single tube model does not account for the interaction with the neighboring
tubes, it is less accurate at high values of mass damping parameter. Yetisir and Weaver 1993
[84] attempted to overcome this deficiency by adding the effect of the neighboring tubes.
Later, Hassan and Hayder 2008 [23], Hassan and Hossen 2010 [24] and Hassan and
Mohany [29] performed time domain simulations using the flow cell model to predict the
Fluidelastic instability in tube bundles. Anderson et al. 2014 [3] implemented the boundary
18
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
layer theory in the flow model for a better prediction of the separation point between the
fluid and the tube. The model was extended later by Hassan and Weaver in a series of
publications 2015, 2016 and 2017 [25, 26, 27] to model the streamwise instability of tube
bundles.
2.3 Modeling of two phase flow
Two phase flow is the type of flow where two phases of the substance are involved. These two
phases could be gas-solid flow like the case in fluidized bed, liquid-solid such as slurry flow
or liquid-gas like the case of boiling and condensation. Also there might be liquid-liquid or
gas-gas in cases of a mixture flow and more generally there might be more than two phases.
The focus here will be liquid-gas flow only as this is the case related to steam generators.
Gasliquid two-phase flow is widely used in many natural and industrial processes. For
this reason, the two phase flow topic has been tackled widely. However, there is a need for
a better insight into the details of this flow (Yan and Che 2010 [83]). In general, adding a
phase to the flow will increase the number of conservation equations by 3 momentum equa-
tions (in case of 3D flow), one continuity equation for the second phase and one or more
equation/equations of state. So, solving the conservation equations for the two phase flow
analytically is almost impossible except for very simple cases. That is why researchers tend
to use different approaches and assumptions to simplify each case. Even numerical tech-
niques use empirical correlations and relations to evaluate different terms of the equations.
These correlations are dependent on the flow pattern. Ishii et al. 2011 [34] summarized the
procedures of solving the conservation equations for each case.
19
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
2.3.1 Flow patterns
In gas-liquid two phase flow, the flow pattern is a description of how the flow is organized.
There are many flow patterns or regimes that occur in the case of two phase gas-liquid
flow. These patterns are dependent mainly on the void fraction, mass flux, fluid properties,
the flow orientation and the flow direction. Also different flow patterns appear for different
fluid properties such as froth flow for the highly viscous Newtonian flow, Cheng et al. 2008
[11]. The flow pattern has a huge effect on the hydrodynamics and heat transfer. Figure
2.7 shows the different two phase flow patterns in a vertical co-current flow. As shown, at
low void fractions, the flow takes the bubbly flow pattern. In the bubbly flow regime, the
liquid remains as continuous phase while small spherical bubbles appear as discrete phase.
As void fraction increases, the number of bubbles goes up as well as bubbles’ size. With
larger number of bubbles, the number of coalescence between bubbles increases which causes
forming larger bubbles. Larger bubbles or Taylor bubbles deviate from the spherical shape
to the bullet shape. For higher void fractions, the bubbles’ size start to increase forming the
slug flow. In the slug flow, continuous liquid phase could still be found while gas is forming
large Taylor bubbles. Small spherical bubbles are still present as well. Churn flow pattern
could appear as well at higher void fractions. More increase of the void fraction causes the
liquid to flow in annular section around the wall while the gas content flows in the middle
of the tube. This pattern is called annular flow pattern. By increasing the void fractions,
liquid droplets start to appear until droplet or mist flow pattern happens with very high
void fractions.
To identify the flow pattern of each case, flow maps are used. The flow map is a chart
that defines the flow pattern/regime based on the mass flux of each phase and the properties.
Flow maps are created by experiments and visualization of the flow. So, the use of each flow
map is limited by certain conditions. Figure 2.8 shows an example of flow pattern map
20
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.7: Schematic of flow patterns in vertical upward gas liquid co-current flow, [11]
reported by Hewitt and Roberts 1969 [30] for vertical up-flow. For more readings on the flow
maps, Cheng et al. 2008 [11] published a review on the flow maps and their applications.
2.3.1.1 Flow patterns in tube bundle
For tube bundles, three flow patterns were reported in the literature; Bubbly, intermittent
and dispersed flows. The absence of the slug and annular flow patterns was explained by
Dowlati et al. 1992 [16] and Noghrehkar et al. 1999 [52] as the tube bundle makes an efficient
source of breakup. Ulbrich and Mewes 1994 [80] conducted an experimental study using Air-
Water mixture to predict the flow pattern in tube bundle. The results were presented as
the flow pattern map shown in Fig. 2.9. Later, Noghrehkar et al. 1999 [52] used air-water
mixture as well to present the flow pattern map shown in Fig. 2.10. Although running
experiments using freon, Moran 2007 [50] agreed well with Ulbrich and Mewes 1994 [80] map
(created using air-water).
21
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.8: Hewitt and Roberts flow-pattern map for vertical upward gas-liquid co-currentflow. G is the mass flux, and ρ is the density. [30]
22
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.9: Flow-pattern map for vertical flow in tube bundle, [80]
Figure 2.10: Flow-pattern map for vertical in tube bundle, [52]
23
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
2.3.2 Models of two phase flow
2.3.2.1 Two fluid model
The two fluid model depends basically on solving the coupled conservation equations of each
phase. Thus, for two-phase flow, two different sets of continuity and momentum equations
will be solved. For one dimensional, inviscid flow in the z direction with no phase change,
each phase k will have its continuity equation in the form:
Dk
Dt(αkρk) + αkρk
∂uk∂z
= 0 (2.4)
where αk, ρk and uk are the volumetric fraction, density and velocity of phase k in the
mixture. Thus, for two phase k = 1, 2 and
n∑k=1
αk = 1 (2.5)
The momentum equation for the phase k will be given by
αkρk(∂uk∂t
+ uk∂uk∂z
) = −αk∂pk∂z
+ αkρkgz (2.6)
In addition to the above conservation equations, an empirical equation of state would
be used to describe the flow regime. i.e. annular, bubbly slug .. etc. Although this model
would give the most accurate results, it is very difficult to be applied in tube bundles, Ishii
and Hibiki 2011 [34].
2.3.2.2 Homogeneous model
This model assumes that the velocity of both phases are equal, Ishii and Hibiki 2011 [34].
So, the mixture density could be calculated from:
24
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
α =
[1 +
ρgρl
(1
x− 1
)]−1
(2.7)
where x is the mixture quality and equal to
x =mg
ml +mg
(2.8)
Because of its simplicity, the homogeneous model was used to report most of the two-
phase, cross flow, FEI data in the literature. However, all experiments showed that the
homogeneous model over-predicts the gas void fraction leading to inaccurate prediction of
the mixture density.
2.3.2.3 Slip model
The slip model was developed by Feenstra et al. 2000 [20] to predict the void fraction more
accurately in tube bundles. It is based on assuming a slip ratio S between the gas and
liquid velocity. By conducting experiments and by using the data available in the literature,
Feenstra et al 2000 [20] was able to correlate the slip as a function of Richardson number
and Capillary number.
S = 1 + 25.7(Ri ∗ Ca)0.5
(P
D
)−1
(2.9)
Then, the void fraction could be calculated from,
α =
[1 + S
ρgρl
(1
x− 1
)]−1
(2.10)
Feenstra et al. 2000 [20] showed superiority of the slip model over the drift flux and
Dowlati’s models. This superiority was confirmed experimentally by Moran 2007 [50].
25
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
2.3.2.4 Void fraction model of Dowlati
This model was developed by Dowlati et al. 1992 [16]. The authors used the superficial gas
velocity j∗g as the main parameter as follow:
j∗g =xGp√
gDρg(ρl − ρg)(2.11)
Then they calculated the void fraction from Eq. 2.12.
α = 1− (1 + C1j∗g + C2j
∗g
2)−0.5 (2.12)
where C1 and C2 are constants. Dowlati et al. 1992 [16] determined their values for
air-water as
C1 = 30 (2.13)
C2 = 50 (2.14)
2.3.2.5 Drift flux model
The drift flux model was proposed by Zuber and Findlay 1965 [85]. The model was developed
as an intermediate model between the two-fluid model and the homogeneous model. It is
much simple than the two-fluid model and still predict accurate results. It is based on using
a distribution parameter, Co to calculate the weighted average velocity of the gas from:
Ug = Co(jg + jl) + VB (2.15)
where VB was defined as the drift velocity and equal to the rise velocity of a bubble in a
stagnant fluid. jg and jl are superficial velocity of gas and liquid respectively.
26
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Many studies were performed to correlate Co and VB in tube bundles. Most of this work
were performed to predict the void fraction in the fuel bundle of nuclear reactors. For more
information on the models and correlations used to predict the void fraction in tube bundle,
please refer to Ozaki et al. 2013 [54], Hibiki et al. 2017 [31] and Mao and Hibiki 2017 [48].
2.4 Two-phase bubbly flow
When modeling two phase bubbly flow, it is a crucial to account for bubble-bubble inter-
action as well as bubble-wall interaction. Bubble-Bubble interactions are mainly: bubble
bounce, coalescence and breakup. This section will focus on the models used to account for
coalescence and breakup.
2.4.1 Bubbles Coalescence
Accounting for bubble coalescence in a two phase bubbly flow model is very important.
Coalescence increases the bubbles’ size and it has a huge effect on the flow pattern. Larger
bubbles shape deforms from the spherical shape and forms Taylor and cap bubbles. Although
the current study assumes a spherical bubble shape regardless of the bubble size, it has to
account for bubble coalescence as this should have an effect on the fluid damping.
Many investigations aimed to explain the coalescence phenomenon such as Marrucci 1968
[49], Chesters 1975 [13], Chesters and Hofman 1982 [12] and Kolev 1993 [40]. Each of these
studies tried to model the coalescence process and whether the coalescence or the bounce
will dominate.
To understand bubble coalescence mechanism, assume having two bubbles approaching
each other. In liquids of low viscosity, both observation and analysis suggest that coalescence
and bouncing processes are in competition. The first step is squeezing the liquid film between
the two bubbles out. This will be accompanied by a bubble surfaces flattening. On one hand,
27
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
h
i
h
Figure 2.11: Sketch of film stretching and bubble surface flattening for two bubbles ap-proaching each other, [49]
if the liquid film reached a certain length Chesters 1975 [13], van der Waals pressures become
more dominant forming a hole in the liquid film allowing the surface tension forces to expand
the hole forming larger bubble. On the other hand, the deformation of the bubbles increases
the surface energy on the expense of the kinetic energy. The bubbles therefore decelerate
and bounce. Chesters and Hofman 1982 [12]. The two bubbles will coalescence if the liquid
film reached the critical thickness before the bubbles start to bounce. Figure 2.11 shows the
stretching of the liquid film and bubble surface flattening.
Many Experimental studies focused on the parameters dominating coalescence. Kirk-
patrick and Lockett 1974 [39] carried out experiments using high speed camera in which a
cloud of air bubbles has been prevented from rising by down-flowing water in a tube. A
complete absence of bubble coalescence was obtained at large approach velocity. The author
28
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
concluded that large approach velocity is important to avoid bubble coalescence.
Kolev 1993 [40] assumed that coalescence happens if the contact time between the two
approaching bubbles, exceeds the time required for the bubbles to push the squeezed liquid
film between them. He assumed that coalescence between two equal size bubbles occurs
when the kinetic energy exceeds the surface tension energy. Hence, the author defined a
critical Webber number above which coalescence would occur,
Wecr =D(ρg + αρl)U
2R
σ� 12 (2.16)
where D is the bubbles diameters, UR is the bubbles relative velocities and α is the added
mass ratio.
Senez and Ettienne 2011 [75] reported an experimental study by Duineveld 1998 [17],
where coalescence occurred under a critical value of Webber
Wecr =DρlU
2R
σ≺ 0.36 (2.17)
Senez and Ettienne 2011 [75] used an equivalent radius in Eq. 2.17 to determine if the
bubble will coalesce or not. If the critical Weber number is exceeded, Eq. 2.18 is used to
determine if the coalescence will still happen or not.
Wecr =2Rρl(Ul − Ub)2
σ≺ 6.6 (2.18)
2.4.2 Bubbles breakup
Bubble breakup is one phenomenon that occurs when two phase bubbly flow is found. The
breakup starts by bubble surface deformation resulting from stress balance applied on the
surface. This deformation could result into necking and the breakup. The resulting bubbles
29
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
after breakup could have the same diameter, in most cases, or they could have different sizes
with different order of magnitude [45].
To understand the mechanism of bubble breakup, it should be known that the surface
tension forces tries, in all cases, to keep the bubble in a spherical shape (lower surface energy).
Due to the pressure, turbulence, or velocity gradients there are some other forces that act
on the bubble surface. These forces could be external and/or internal forces. These forces
act to penetrate the bubble surface. The bubble shape changes to achieve balance between
these forces on one side and the surface tension on the other side. When the applied forces
are large enough, a neck starts to form which ends up by bubble breakup.
Capillary number Ca which represents a ratio between the shear stress and the surface
tension stress plays an important role in determining whether the bubble will breakup or
not. Capillary number could be calculated by
Ca =τvτs
=µfdγ
2σ(2.19)
where τv and τs are the viscous and surface tension stresses, µf is the continuous phase
viscosity, liquid in the case of bubbly flow and γ is the shear rate.
When the capillary number exceeds a critical value Cacr, the bubble will become unstable
and breakup. The region of
Cacr ≤ Ca ≤ kCacr, (2.20)
is dominated by necking, where the droplet breaks up into two equal-sized bubbles. When
the capillary number is suddenly increased to a value well above Cacr, the droplet is rapidly
elongated into a long cylindrical fluid thread, which subsequently breaks into a series of
fragments. In simple shear flow, k = 2.
Many models were introduced in the literature to determine the value of the critical
30
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
capillary number [22, 6]. It depends on viscosity ratio and the flow type. Figure 2.12 shows
an example of stability maps to determine the bubble stability.
Unstable
Stable
Viscosity ratio
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
0.1
1
10
Ca
pilla
ry n
um
be
r
Figure 2.12: Critical capillary number in simple shear flow [45]
The size of the new resulting bubbles is usually in the same order of magnitude, specially
if they are resulting from spherical bubbles. However, in some cases small bubbles are sheared
off from the original large cap bubble. Liao and Lucas 2009 [45] reviewed bubble breakup
and discussed the breakup mechanisms and models. Liao and Lucas 2009 [45] summarized
the breakup mechanisms as follows,
31
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
2.4.2.1 Breakup due to turbulent fluctuation
This mechanism is considered the number one cause of bubbles breakup due to the pressure
fluctuations on the bubble surface. Most of the studies in the literature focused on the
breakup due to turbulent fluctuations and turbulent eddy collisions. Liao and Lucas 2009
[45] simplified the mechanism as it is the bubble shape response to the fluctuation of the
surrounding fluid or due to collisions with eddies. When the amplitude of the oscillation is
close to that required to make the particle surface unstable, it starts to deform and stretch
in one direction leading to a neck that contracts further causing breakup.
2.4.2.2 Breakup due to the viscous shear forces
This mechanism happens due to the velocity gradient which causes shear force on the bubble
surface. The viscous shear forces applied on the bubble causes elongation which result in
necking and might lead into breakup.
2.4.2.3 Breakup due to shearing-off
Due to the high velocity gradient on the liquid-gas interface. The shearing-off process is
characterized by a number of small particles sheared-off from a large one, which is also
called erosive breakage. In highly viscous flows, the shearing-off is determined by the balance
between the viscous shear force and the surface tension at skirts of the cap/slug bubble (Liao
and Lucas 2009 [45]). Fu et al. 2002 [21] showed that in the case of air-water mixture, the
shearing off can happen due to the gas boundary layer, inside the bubble, penetrating the
liquid surface (Liao and Lucas 2009 [45]).
32
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
2.4.2.4 Breakup due to interfacial instability
Breakup due to interfacial instability mechanism can occur in the case of flow characteristics
(could happen in the case of bubbles rising in stagnant fluid. It occurs when a fluid is
accelerated into higher density fluid resulting in interfacial forces able to breakup the bubble.
By looking at the above breakup mechanisms, it could be found that none of them would
exist one dimensional inviscid laminar flow. This could allow bubbles to grow beyond the
limit of being treated as spherical bubble. However, according to Beguin (2010), reported
by Senez and Etienne 2011 [75] in a two-phase internal flow, a bubble subjected to the wake
of other bubbles can be stable up to a radius of 7mm. This is a very large size in a typical
bundle geometry where the distance between tubes is in order of millimeters. This explains
why the tube bundles have an additional breakup mechanism and agrees with Dowlati et al.
1992 [16] and Noghrehkar et al. 1999 [52],
2.4.3 CFD modeling of bubbly flow
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a powerful tool for solving Navier-Stokes equations
numerically combined with turbulence model. It allows simulating wide range of cases while
obtaining accurate results without conducting large number of experiments. Using CFD
for simulating liquid-gas two phase flow has been started in the last decades due to the
improvement of computer technology. One of the main advantage of using the CFD tool is it
can give better understanding of physical mechanisms. However, using CFD to simulate two
phase liquid-gas is faced by many challenges. One of them is that there is a need for different
models to simulate different flow patterns. Another challenge is the large computational time
needed compared to single phase simulation.
Two basic models are being used in the most commercial packages; Eulerian-Eulerian
model and Eulerian-Lagrangian model. The first, Eulerian-Eulerian model considers two
33
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
continuous fluids. By solving Navier-Stokes equation for the two separate phases, a solution
could be obtained. The second model is Eulerian-Lagrangian model. In this case, one fluid
is treated as continuous phase while the other is treated as dispersed phase.
For the above two models, there is a need to track the interface between the different
phases. A large length scale model is used to track the interface in the case of slug, annular or
churn flow where the interface is usually much larger than the computational grid. In the case
of bubbly or droplet flow, the interface length is small or comparable to the computational
grid. In this case, a small length scale model is used. Yan and Che 2010 [83] developed
a coupled model where it is possible to combine both large-scale and small-scale interfaces
models by considering three phases; liquid, small bubbles and large bubbles, Fig. 2.13.
Figure 2.13: Map of the three phases used in the coupled model, [83]
34
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
2.5 FEI in two phase flow
The FEI problem is always associated with tube bundles, which is used widely in many heat
exchangers, boilers and condenser, specially in the power generation industry. However, most
of the research performed focused on single phase flow. Surveying the literature, it could be
seen that up to the permanent closure of San Onfore nuclear generating station (SONGS) in
2013, most of the studies on FEI in two phase flow aimed to predict the stability threshold.
Similar to single phase flow, the industry kept using the famous Connors Eq. (2.2 with
different values of K and n. After (SONGS), more fundamental research has been published
trying to analyze the problem specially in the inflow direction where instability occurred.
Experimental studies to predict the stability maps for two phase flow used different
combination of fluids. For example air-water mixture was the most common one such as
Pettigrew 1989 [61] and Tan et al. 2018 [77]. Some experiments used Freon such as Feenstra
2000 [19]. The use of steam-water mixture was very rare in the literature because of the
high cost.
When trying to analyze the applicability of using Connors equation, starting by the left
hand side, the pitch flow velocity U , is the first variable to be determined. In single phase
flow, knowing the mass flux and dimensions, obtaining an estimate value of the mean flow
velocity is a matter of calculations. However, in two phase flow, velocity determination is
much more complex. There are two phases, each has a different velocity. Several approaches
were utilized to estimate the flow velocity. Some of these models are discussed later in this
chapter. Second parameter in Connors equation is the natural frequency f . Again, in single
phase flow it is possible to estimate the natural frequency of the tube in a certain medium
by experimental or analytical technique. However, in two phase flow, natural frequency
changes with the void fraction and flow regime. In the right hand side of the equation, more
unknown parameters will be found such as the mass per unit length m, the system damping
35
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
δ and the flow density ρ in addition to the constants K and n. The mass per unit length
m is a summation of the tube mass mt and the fluid added mass ma. Obviously, the latter
is a function of the fluid density ρ which is a function of the void fraction α. The system
damping δ is also a function of the void fraction.
In addition to the difficulties discussed above, there are more essential parameters of
two phase flow that were not taken into account in Connors equation, even after ignoring
heat transfer and phase change. An example of these parameters is the surface tension σ
which affects the two phase flow pattern. Also the viscosity µ, which is function of the void
fraction, has a major effect on the flow pattern as well as the pressure drop. Even the flow
pattern was not accounted for in Connors equation. In addition, Connors equation does not
take some bundle essential parameters into consideration such as the pitch to diameter ratio
P/D and the bundle geometry.
It could be concluded from the above that Connors equation is inadequate, even with
different values of K and n, to predict the FEI threshold in two phase flow. However most of
the studies reported experimental data by plotting the flow map between the reduced flow
velocity and the mass damping parameter.
The reported data for FEI instability kept using the homogeneous model to calculate the
void fraction and hence, the mixture density. Figure 2.14 shows an example of two phase
stability maps reported by Moran 2007 [50]. The map was plotted using the homogeneous
model. The figure shows the deviation between the two phase data and the prediction of
Connors equation. Also it is hard to define the different flow patterns on the map.
The main difference between the stability maps of single-phase and two-phase flow is the
way of calculating the density and velocity for the mixture. The most common model used
in the literature was the homogeneous model which is based on the assumption of having
the same flow velocity for both liquid and gas.
Figure 2.15 shows a stability map plotted using the slip density and interfacial flow
36
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.14: Stability map for two phase flow based on the homogeneous model, [50]
37
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.15: Stability map for two phase flow based on the interfacial velocity and measuredRAD density, [50]
velocity. As shown in the figure, the accurate prediction of the void fraction by the slip
model enhanced the FEI threshold trend.
recently, [46] conducted experiments using air-water to check the effect of pitch to diam-
eter ration in normal square bundle. The authors confirmed that lower pitch to diameter
becomes unstable at lower velocities.
2.5.1 Two-phase flow damping
To analyze FEI, it is important to study the ability of the system to absorb the fluid energy
which is called “damping”. In tube arrays system, there are many source of damping. These
38
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
sources act together to form the total damping. [58, 59] presented a review summarizing the
damping mechanism in FEI. Pettigrew et al. 1989 According to Pettigrew et al. 1989a [59],
the most important sources of damping that contributes to the total system damping are:
1. Structure or material damping
2. Squeeze-film between the tube and the supports
3. Viscous damping due to the friction between the fluid and the tubes
4. Flow damping which is dependent on the fluid velocity
5. Friction damping at the supports
For the two phase flow, the damping of the two phases is added to the above sources
of damping. Carlucci 1980 [7] showed experimentally the magnitude of two phase damping
compared to other damping sources . Carlucci showed that the total damping in the case of
two-phase is larger than single phase, whether it is liquid or gas.
In order to compare the damping from different two-phase flow damping, Pettigrew and
Taylor 2004 [57] normalized the damping by the mass ratio and a function of the tube
diameter. Pettigrew and Taylor 2004 [60] compared the normalized two-phase flow damping
published earlier, Fig. 2.16. The figure show a constant trend of the two phase damping
increasing with the void fraction until it hits a maximum at 40 to 60%. Further increase in
void fraction decreases the damping again.
ζnormalized = ζtp
(m
ρlD2
)[(1− (D/De)
2)2
1 + (D/De)3
](2.21)
All the above studies, on the damping, were using the homogeneous model to calculate
the mixture properties. Moran 2007 [50] studied the two phase damping experimentally
and compared between the slip and homogeneous model. Moran 2007 [50] showed that the
39
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.16: Comparison of normalized two phase damping from different studies by [60]
40
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
slip model gives better estimation of the maximum damping which occurred at the end
of bubbly flow regime. Through dimensional analysis, Moran showed the importance of
Capillary number on the two phase damping.
2.5.2 Modeling FEI in two phase flow
Several attempts were directed at measuring fluid forces in two phase flow. For example,
Hirota et al. 2002 [32], Inada et al. 2002 [33], Alyaldin and Mureithi 2018 [2] measured the
fluid force coefficients in two-phase steam-water flow in order to utilize them in the unsteady
flow model. Their results showed weak effect of the surrounding tubes which made it difficult
to utilize the full model accounting for a fully flexible tube bundle. Recently, Shahriary et
al. 2007 [76] measured the force coefficients required for the quasi-steady model in the case
of air-water mixture.
Li and Hao 2016 [44] developed a time delay formulation by measuring the unsteady and
quasi-steady forces. The effect of Reynold’s number was taken into consideration. The study
showed an improvement of the predictions of FEI threshold in two phase flow.
Sawadogo and Mureithi 2014 [74] and Olala and Mureithi 2015 [53] used the quasi-steady
model to predict the fluidelastic instability for air-water mixture by measuring the unsteady
fluid forces in the lift direction and comparing the measured forces with the quasi-steady
forces, obtaining an expression for the time delay.
Sadek et al. 2018 [72] used CFD technique to predict the fluid forces acting on a cluster
of tubes subjected to two-phase cross flow. The predicted force coefficients were then used in
an unsteady flow model to predict the stability threshold. The predicted stability threshold
agrees well with the experimental counterparts, Fig. 2.17.
Nai-bin et al. [51] implemented the slip model in the flow cell model, introducing a semi-
analytical model for the two phase flow. By changing the slip ratio, the authors were able to
41
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 2.17: Stability threshold map obtained from the two-phase flow unsteady forcessimulations and direct flow/structure coupling vs. experimental data from Pettigrew (1989)for airwater flow, [72]
42
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
fit the data available in the literature for bubbly and intermittent flows in one single map.
The deviation between the prediction and experimental data exceeds 100% in some cases.
2.6 Summary and research needs
As shown in the literature, FEI is still a major problem in the design of heat exchanger.
There are many successful models for single phase flow able to predict the stability threshold.
Although some of these models need experimental inputs, there are many published studies
that include experimental result to extract these data.
For two phase flow, FEI problem still needs more understandings. Although there were
many attempts to study FEI as well as much experimental studies, very few attempts were
made to model this phenomenon analytically. Among these attempts there is no model that
is able to explain the physical difference between single and two phase flows. This research
tries to shed light on this difference to come up with a mechanistic model that takes various
phenomenas into account.
The objective of this work is to develop an analytical framework, able to predict FEI in
two phase flow across a tube bundle. The model focuses on the bubbly flow regime. Bubble-
to-bubble interction, bubble coalescense and compressibility will be taken into account.
43
Chapter 3
Modelling
As mentioned in section 2.6, this research aims to develop an analytical model to predict
FEI threshold in two phase flow. The model focuses on the bubbly flow regime and takes the
bubble dynamics and interactions into account. Bubble compressibility will be accounted
for in this model. The model is considered a novel work that takes such phenomenas into
account when simulating FEI.
There are many differences between single and two phase flows. In two phase flow, all
properties are function of the void fraction and the flow pattern structure. This means the
density, viscosity, enthalpy and internal energy can have different both; local and average
values in the flow field. Moreover, each fluid velocity can be different due to the slip between
phases. The prediction of the phase velocity in two phase flow can be quite challenging.
This is mainly because it is a function of void fraction, Feenstra et al. 2000 [20], and local
density. Also the orientation of the flow passage affects the flow pattern which in turn has
an effect on the flow behavior as well as the pressure drop. For these reasons, modelling of
two phase flow is such a difficult problem and requires many clouser relations based on the
application.
For the flow across tube bundle, the pressure pulsations in the flow lead to tube vibration.
44
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Also, the fluid compressibility plays an important role when studying FEI. Although single
phase flow assumption could be used considering compressible flow at certain flow conditions,
bubbly two phase flow induced pressure waves that could not be ignored, Brennen 1995 [5].
In order to demonstrates how the bubble compressibility can affect the fluidelastic insta-
bility, a single bubble in a flow field that is undergoing rapid pressure change is considered.
In this case, as the pressure increases, the forces acting on the bubble surface is increased.
Consequently, the bubble responds by decreasing its size trying to reach an equilibrium be-
tween the internal and external forces. Theoretically this decrease in bubble diameter would
continue until the internal and external forces are in dynamic equilibrium. However, in a
dynamic system, an overshoot may occur causing the bubble size to go below the equilibrium
size until reaching an equilibrium. The decrease in the bubble size gives a space for the liquid
phase resulting in damping the original pressure signal.
The above explanation intercepted as the bubble always acts as a damper. However, this
is not true. Consider the pressure signal in the above example is an oscillating wave. The
corresponding bubble size will be oscillating with the pressure but with a time lag. Hence,
the bubble would act as a damper in some situations and might accelerate the instability in
other situations due to the time lag between the bubble response and pressure oscillations.
From the above, it is clear that bubble compressibility plays a vital role in determining
the FEI threshold of two phase bubbly flow across tube bundle. This chapter presents the
mail components of the analytical framework used to model two phase flow. Next chapter
(4) will discuss how these components were integrated together into the overall framework.
3.1 Overview of the analytical framework
The current frame work includes modelling the tube bundle dynamics, the continuous phase
flow, the flow of the dispersed phase, and the fluidelastic instability feedback. The two phase
45
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
flow is modeled utilizing an Eulerian-Lagrangian approach where separate two phases flow
are considered. The interaction between dispersed phase (bubble) and continuous phase
(liquid) is accounted for through two factors: (a)the bubble-liquid momentum exchange,
and (b) void fraction variation within the interstitial flow. The FEI modelling provides the
exchange of pressure from fluid to structure and displacement from the structure to the fluid.
3.2 Structural dynamics
Fluidelastic is a self excitation mechanism where the fluid forces develop as a result of the
tube motion. In other words, the tube has to start vibrating by any other mechanism such
as turbulent buffeting, then, the fluid respond to this vibration. It is expected that the tube
will go unstable at the least stable mode which is the first mode.
In a typical CANDU steam generator, the tubes take the shape of an inverted U-bend.
At the top of this bend, the flow becomes cross flow while the void fraction reaches its
maximum values leading to higher flow velocities. When loose supports exist, the tube acts
as a cantilever fixed from one end and fluidelastic instability forces act as excitation forces.
That is why most of the experimental studies were performed on cantilever tubes trying to
simplify the geometry and lowering the cost.
Based on the above, the current model assumes the following:
1. A single vibrating tube in a tightly fixed bundle. This assumption is based on the
observation by Lever and Weaver 1982 [43] that a single tube would go unstable at
almost the same velocity of a fully flexible tube bundle bundle will. The assumption is
commonly used to determine the FEI threshold experimentally, for example Feenstra
2000 [19] and Moran 2007 [50]
2. The tube will be assumed as a single degree of freedom resembling the first mode of a
46
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
cantilever tube.
Using these assumptions, the tube vibration was modeled as a forced vibration of single
degree of freedom system where the equation of motion could be simplified as:
Mx+ 4πζMfnx+ kx = FFEI (3.1)
The effective tube mass, M , can be calculated as the sum of the tube mass per unit
length m and the added mass ma. The latter was calculated using Rogers et al. 1984
[71] correlation, Eq. (3.2). Although this correlation was developed for single phase flow,
Pettigrew et al. 1989a [61] reported a good agreement with this correlation when testing
two phase flow, using the homogeneous density, for void fractions up to 80%. Pettigrew et
al. 1989a [61] attributed the discrepancies for higher void fraction to the intermittent flow
regime. In this study, this equation is used as the flow is assumed to be bubbly flow as the
void fraction, calculated using the homogeneous model, does not exceed 40%.
ma =
(ρπd2
4
)(De/d)2 + 1
(De/d)2 − 1(3.2)
In Eq. (3.2), De/d was calculated from Rogers et al. 1984 [71] correlation for square
bundle, Eq. (3.3). The density ρ is calculated using the homogeneous model
De/d = (1.07 + 0.56p/d)p/d (3.3)
In Eq. (3.1), the structure damping ζ could be measured for the vibrating tube. If there
is no available data (design stage for example), it is reasonable ζ between 0.5 to 1%. Other
types of damping discussed in chapter 2 such as the the flow damping, viscous damping and
two phase damping, is considered by the model by considering the gas compressibility.
fn is the tube natural frequency measured in the two phase mixture and k is the stiffness.
47
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
To calculate k, the tube is assumed as a cantilever fixed at one end and free to vibrate at
the other end.
The Fluidelastic instability force, FFEI , which represents the excitation force of the fluid
on the tube was calculated by integrating the pressure around the tube between the attach-
ment and the separation points. A two phase flow model was developed to calculate the
pressure around the tube and will be discussed in the next section.
3.3 Continuous phase
The liquid was considered as a continuous phase flows across the bundle. Lever and Weaver
1982 [43] observed visually that the flow across the bundle is divided into streamtubes as
shown in Fig. (3.1). Based on this observations, Lever and Weaver 1986a [41] modeled the
flow around a vibrating tube as streamtubes. The current model assumes the following for
the continuous phase:
1. The flow across the tube bundle surrounding the vibrating tube is to be divided into
two streamtubes.
2. The flow in each streamtube is assumed to be one dimensional, inviscid flow.
3. Liquid is always continuous phase and gas can not block the streamtube.
4. The streamtubes boundaries are flexible and vibrates according to the tube under
investigation.
5. No fluid flow across the streamtube boundaries. This applies to both the continuous
and dispersed phases.
Figure (3.2) shows the streamtubes surrounding the tube under investigation. The cross
sectional area of the streamtube area is a function of the position and time A(s, t). This is
48
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 3.1: Visual observation of streamtubes flowing through normal square tube bundle,[43]
consistent with the assumption proposed by Lever and Weaver 1986a [41] of presenting the
area in the form of steady state term A and transient term a.
Similar to the flow area, the continuous phase velocity and the pressure are assumed to
have steady state terms U and P as well as transient components u and p.
A = A(S) + a(s, t) (3.4)
U = U(S) + u(s, t) (3.5)
P = P (S) + p(s, t) (3.6)
49
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 3.2: Streamtubes surrounding the vibrating tube
In each streamtube, the flow direction is the curvilinear coordinate (s) where the origin
(s = 0) is at the tube center. For the normal square bundle, this curvilinear coordinate is a
straight vertical line except for the distance between the attachment and separation where
if follows the tube curvature. The fluid enters the channel at (s = −so). The entrance area,
Ao is assumed to be constant. At the streamtube entrance, the fluid velocity and pressure
are considered constants and equal to the average two phase velocity Uo and Po, respectively.
Where Po and Uo are independent of the tube displacement. They are function of the bundle
geometry, pitch to diameter ratio P/D and the mass flux across the bundle as well as the
void fraction. The tube contact with the streamtube is between the attachment (s = −sa)
to the separation (s = ss).
The amplitude of streamtube perturbation between the attachment and separation is
similar to the tube displacement. The amplitude of the area perturbations was assumed to
be zero at the entrance of the streamtube (s = −so). A Linear relation was assumed in order
50
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Table 3.1: Streamtube parameters for normal square bundle
Parameter Formula
Pitch to Diameter Ratio PD
Ao
DPD− 1
soD
PD
loD
4 soD
βo 20o
xoD
sinβo2
to determine the amplitude of the area perturbation at any location between the entrance to
the attachment. Also, due to fluid elasticity, a time lag between the tube displacement and
the area perturbation is assumed. Another linear relation is assumed to determine this time
lag at any location in the streamtube between the entrance (s = −so) and the attachment
position. Table 3.1 shows the streamtube parameters for the square bundle used in the
current model. In the table βo is the angle between the attachment to the separation. The
conservation equations were solved for the continuous phase to determine the velocity and
pressure. More details are presented in section 4.1.
3.4 Dispersed phase
It should be noted that the current model focuses only on the bubbly flow regime. The
dispersed phase (bubbles) are treated using the Lagrangian approach. By calculating the
forces acting on each bubble, the bubble velocity and acceleration can be determined. Bub-
51
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
ble bouncing (impact between bubble), coalescence and breakup are taken into account in
the current model. Some assumptions were made to simplify the model which could be
summarized in:
1. The flow in each channel is bubbly flow with one continuous liquid phase and one
dispersed gas phase. This assumption is valid for low and medium void fractions (less
than 40% calculated using the homogeneous model) as observed by Moran 2007 [50].
Moran reported the transition from bubbly to intermittent flow between 40 to 70%.
2. All bubbles take the shape of a sphere at all the time.
3. All the bubbles are small enough to assume uniform properties (pressure and tempera-
ture), velocities inside the bubble. The gas particles inside each bubble have the same
properties and they do not move relative to each other.
4. The pressure gradient, on the bubble outer surface, is too small to affect the bubble
spherical shape.
5. The flow in each streamtube is an isothermal flow where the liquid and gas are in
thermal equilibrium.
6. The time average void fraction does not change in the streamtube and heat transfer
between the tubes and the fluid is considered too small to be accounted in the model.
Although the main purpose of heat exchanger is to transfer heat between two fluids,
the length of the considered streamtube is very short compared to the fluid path in the
heat exchanger. So, the heat added to the fluid along the streamtube could be ignored.
By dividing the time domain into infinitesimal time steps, the forces acting on each bubble
were calculated at each time step. Using the resultant forces, the new bubble velocity was
calculated at each time step by applying Newton’s second law. This velocity, in turn, could
be used to predict the bubble location in the following time step.
52
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
3.4.1 Bubbles generation algorithm
Bubbles is to be generated randomly taking into account the bubble size distribution to
match the beta distribution function. A schematic sketch showing the beta distribution
function is presented in Fig. (3.3) and given by Eq. 3.7.
Figure 3.3: A schematic sketch showing the beta distribution function
This is the size distribution found by Wallis 1968 [81] and adopted by Beguin, reported
by Senez and Etienne 2011 [75],
P (R) = 10R
Rmax
e−5( RRmax
)2 (3.7)
53
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
where Rmax represents the bubble radius which have the maximum probability and it
could be calculated from the empirical correlation given by:
Rmax = 0.57σ
ρl
(2fU3
m
Ao
)−25
(3.8)
where σ is the surface tension, ρl is the liquid density, Um is the mean flow velocity,
D is the pipe diameter which was substituted by the width of the the stream tube in this
study (characteristic length), and f is the friction coefficient. It should be mentioned that
the above equation was originally derived for flow in a vertical pipe before replacing the
pipe diameter with the characteristic length Ao for the purpose of the current research. The
friction coefficient was reported by Senez and Etienne 2011 [75] as:
f = 0.046
(UmD
νl
)−0.2
(3.9)
where νl is the liquid kinematic viscosity.
Once Rmax, is calculated, bubble distribution can be generated. After generating each
bubble with radius R, a check for the total volume fraction is performed. If the total volume
fraction does not exceed the input volume fraction, a uniform random function is used to
generate a location for the bubble to place it in the streamtube. An initial vertical velocity
equal to the average flow velocity Um was assumed while a zero initial velocity was assumed
in the horizontal direction.
The pressure inside the bubble is assumed uniform for each bubble and is calculated by
applying force balance on the bubble surface such that:
Pinside − Poutside =2σ
R(3.10)
A normal and uniform distribution functions of bubbles size were also tested as an initial
54
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
distributions instead of the beta distribution. The results will be presented in chapter 5.
3.4.2 Forces acting on the bubble
There are three main forces acting on each bubble; lift , drag and buoyancy force, as shown
in Fig. 3.4. All these three forces were analyzed into two components; X (perpendicular to
the channel centerline) and Y (parallel to the channel centerline). In addition to these three
forces, the pressure difference between the top and bottom of the bubble adds a force equal
to:
Fpressure = Aprojected ∗ 4p (3.11)
Figure 3.4: Forces acting on each bubble
55
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
3.4.2.1 Lift force
Many numerical studies on the vortex formation behind a bubble in two phase flow were
presented in the literature, Taneda 1956 —reported by Brennen 1995 [5]—. In the current
research, the bubbles were treated as spheres while the liquid approaches the sphere with
the relative velocity Urel. Each bubble acts as a bluff vortices shed from the body. The
frequency of vortex shedding around a sphere has not been studied as extensively as in the
case of a circular cylinder and seems to vary more with Reynolds number, Brennen 1995 [5].
Brennen 1995 [5] reported experimental results by Taneda 1956, who found that at Re = 30,
a vortex ring develops close to the rear stagnation point, Fig. (3.5). The vortices’s were
found to expand with further increase in the Reynolds number. Defining locations on the
surface by the angle from the front stagnation point, the separation point moves forward
from about 130◦ at Re = 100 to about 115◦ at Re=300. At Re = 130, the wake diameter
reaches comparable value to that of the sphere diameter. At this point the flow becomes
unstable and the ring vortex that makes up the wake begins to oscillate [5]. It should be
mentioned here that the order of magnitude of Reynolds number in the current study is
1000.
For Re = 103 to 3 ∗ 105, laminar boundary layer separation occurs at θ = 84◦ and
a large wake is formed behind the sphere. Laminar flow occurs downstream close to the
sphere while further downstream transition and turbulence occurring in the shear layers
spreads to generate a turbulent “far-wake.” As the Reynolds number increases the shear
layer transition moves forward until, quite abruptly, the turbulent shear layer reattaches to
the body, resulting in a major change in the final position of separation (θ = 120◦) and in
the form of the turbulent wake.
The bubble Reynolds number for ith bubble is calculated by
56
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 3.5: Streamlines of steady flow (from left to right) past a sphere at various Reynoldsnumbers, Taneda 1956 (reported by Brennen 1995 [5])
57
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Rei =ρlUreliD
µl(3.12)
The vortex induced vibration force acting on the bubble was assumed in the form of
FL = CL(t)ρlU
2r
2
πD2b
4(3.13)
FL is a periodic force where the direction changes with the alternating vortices. The
coefficient of lift force which can be calculated from
CL(t) = CLo sin (2πfV IV t+ φrandom) (3.14)
CLo is the amplitude of the lift force coefficient. The frequency of the alternating vortices’s
fV IV can be determined from Strouhal number St such that
fV IV =St UrD
(3.15)
3.4.2.1.1 Strouhal number
For a spherical bubble, Reynolds number is in the order of 103. Sakamoto and Haniu 1990
[73] conducted an experimental study to find Strouhal number for a sphere. Sakamoto and
Haniu 1990 [73] covered a wide range of Strouhal number showing a good agreement with
the literature, as shown in figure (3.6). The authors showed that vorticity started to shed
behind the sphere at Re = 300. The values of Strouhal number up to Re = 103 were almost
0.2. For Reynold’s between 103 to 104, Sakamoto and Haniu 1990 [73] reported two values
of Strouhal number at the same Reynold’s number. The lower value was found to be around
St1 = 0.2. The values of higher Strouhal number was fitted as in Eq. (3.16) for the purpose
of the current research. For Re > 104, single value of Strouhal was reported once again and
58
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 3.6: Values of Strouhal at different Reynolds number [73]
it was around 0.2.
St2 = −10−8Re2 + 0.0003Re+ 0.0138 (3.16)
3.4.2.1.2 Coefficient of lift force CLo
CLo, was obtained from an experimental study to find the coefficient of lift and drag forces
on a bubble conducted by Rastello et al. 2011 [67]. The authors presented the coefficient
as a function of the bubble Reynolds number (calculated using the same parameters as Eq.
(3.12)) as shown in Eq. (3.17). The equation is valid for low Reynolds number Re < 150.
Magnaudet and Legendre 1998 [47] showed that CL approaches 0.5 for higher Re number.
CLo = 0.5 + 4
(1− 6
5Re1/6
)e−Re
1/6
(3.17)
59
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
In the current model, two random phase lag was generated for each bubble at the bubble
generation stage, then it remains constant during the simulation; one for each value of
Strouhal number. CLo and the second value of Strouhal number (if applicable) St2 are
calculated from Eq. (3.17) and (3.16). St1 is assumed to be 0.2 for all bubbles. By using Eq.
(3.15), the value of the vorticity frequency/frequencies could be determined. Then the lift
coefficient and the lift force are determined. New random phase lag values were generated
for the new bubble/bubbles after coalescence and/or breakup.
3.4.2.2 Drag force
Drag force FD on any body is a function of the velocity components Ux and Uy as well as
the area projected to the flow, Eq. (3.18).
FD = CDρU2
2Aprojected (3.18)
FDx = −CDρUx|Ux|
2πR2 (3.19)
FDy = −CDρUy|Uy|
2πR2 (3.20)
The direction of the drag force is expected to be against the bubble velocity direction,
see Figure (3.4). As the bubble might have a velocity in both x and y directions, the current
model calculates the drag in the x and y directions separately, Eq. (3.19) and(3.20).
The problem in the above equations is calculating the drag coefficient CD. Several empir-
ical formulas has been found in literature to relate the drag coefficient to Reynold’s number.
For example, Ishii and Zuber 1979 [36] related CD as a function of vapor void fraction and
Reynold’s number as:
60
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
CD =24(1 + 0.1(Re(1− α))0.75)
Re(1− α)(3.21)
For simplification, Senez and Etienne 2011 [75] modified the equation in the numerical
model to be
CD =24
Re(1− α)
Also, Ishii [35] modified Harmanthy, 1960 equation by dividing by√
(1− ε) to be
CD = 1.14R
√g(ρl − ρg)σ(1− α)
(3.22)
Equation (3.22) was used by Senez and Etienne 2011 [75] and others for low Reynold’s
number. In the present research, the coefficient of drag is taken as the larger between the
values calculated by both Eqs. (3.22 and 3.21)
3.4.2.3 Buoyancy force
The buoyancy force FB is is an upward force exerted by the liquid against the bubble weight.
It is equal to the weight of the displaced liquid. By subtracting the bubble weight from the
buoyancy force, the buoyancy can be calculated from:
FB = g4
3πR3(ρl − ρg) (3.23)
The direction of this resultant force will be in the positive y direction.
3.4.3 Bubble kinematics
It should be noted that the bubble location and velocity changes with the time. Therefore, in
order to calculate the change in the bubble location each time frame, the model assumes that
the velocity is constant during each time step. Then by using the two velocity components
61
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
in the vertical and horizontal direction, it would be possible to find the new location using
the following equations:
Xnew = Xold + Vxdt (3.24)
Ynew = Yold + Vydt (3.25)
Since the bubble velocity changes according to the forces acting on it, this change in the
velocity can be calculated as:
dV =F
mdt (3.26)
3.4.4 Bubble-to-bubble impact
Bubble impact is a difficult problem to model. At low void fraction, when two bubbles
approach each other, they bounce. This could happen before touching each other. However,
some studies modeled the bubble bouncing as an elastic impact such as Delnoij et al. 1997
[15], Senez and Etienne 2011 [75]. This assumption found to be logical when the energy
dissipated in bubble bouncing approaches zero.
For elastic impact between two bubbles, it is assumed that the axis connecting the centers
is aa while the axis bb is perpendicular, Fig. (3.7). The velocity components in the directions
aa and bb could be calculated for each bubble using the horizontal and vertical velocities. For
elastic impact, the velocity component in the perpendicular direction will not be affected. To
calculate the resulting velocities component in the aa-direction, conservation of momentum
and energy equation should be applied. The momentum conservation equation can be written
as:
62
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 3.7: Elastic Impact between bubbles
m1Uaa1 +m2Uaa2 = m1U′
aa1+m2U
′
aa2(3.27)
where Uaa1 , Uaa2 are the old velocities of the two bubbles in the aa-direction. U′aa1
and
U′aa2
are the new velocities in the same aa-direction. m1 and m2 are the mass of the first
and second bubbles, respectively.
The conservation of kinetic energy can be expressed by:
m1U2aa1
+m2U2aa2
= m1U′2aa1
+m2U′2aa2
(3.28)
The non-trivial solution for (3.27) and (3.28) obtained by Senez and Etienne 2011 [75],
will be
U′
aa1= −m2 −m1
m1 +m2
Uaa1 +2m2
m1 +m2
Uaa2 (3.29)
63
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
U′
aa2=
2m1
m1 +m2
Uaa1 +m2 −m1
m1 +m2
Uaa2 (3.30)
3.4.5 Bubble bouncing from the wall
When a bubble impacts the wall, the breakup criteria is checked. If the breakup conditions
does not dominate, elastic impact between the bubble and the wall is assumed. For elastic
impact, the velocity parallel to the wall remains constant while the velocity normal to the
wall is diverted to the opposite direction according to the following:
U′
x1 = −Ux1 (3.31)
3.4.6 Bubbles coalescence
Accounting for bubble coalescence in a two phase bubbly flow model is very important. Since
the coalescence mechanism increases the bubbles’ size and greatly affects the flow pattern.
Larger bubble shape varies from the spherical shape to Taylor and cap bubbles. Although
the current study assumes a spherical bubble shape regardless of the bubble size, it has to
account for bubble coalescence to capture their effect effect on the fluid damping.
Many researches aimed to explain the coalescence Marrucci 1968 [49], Chesters 1975 [13],
Chesters and Hofman 1982 [12] and Kolev 1993 [40]. Each of these studies tried to model
the coalescence process and whether the coalescence or the bounce will dominate.
Bubble coalescence mechanism is affected by two competing processes. The first process
involves squeezing the liquid between the two bubbles. This is accompanied by a bubble
surfaces flattening. If the liquid film reached a minimum thickness, according to Chesters
1975 [13], Van der Waals pressures become dominant forming a hole in the liquid film allowing
the surface tension forces to expand the hole and a larger bubble is formed. In the second
64
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
process, the deformation of the bubbles increases the surface energy on the expense of the
kinetic energy. The bubbles therefore decelerate and bounce, Chesters and Hofman 1982
[12]. The two bubbles will coalescence if the first process dominates and they will bounce, if
the second process becomes more dominant [12], see Fig. (2.11).
Many experimental studies focused on the parameters dominating coalescence. Kirk-
patrick and Lockett 1974 [39] carried out experiments using high speed camera in which
a cloud of air bubbles has been prevented from rising by downflowing water in a tube. A
complete absence of bubble coalescence was obtained at large approach velocity. The author
concluded that large approach velocities is important to avoid bubble coalescence.
Kolev 1993 [40] assumed that coalescence happens if the contact time bubbles exceeds
the time required for the bubbles to squeeze the liquid film between them. He assumed
that coalescence between two equal size bubbles occurs when the kinetic energy exceeds the
surface tension energy. He defined a critical Weber number above which coalescence would
occur as:
Wecr =d(ρg + αaρl)U
2r
σ� 12 (3.32)
where d is the bubbles diameters, Ur is the bubbles relative velocities and αa is the added
mass ratio.
Senez and Etienne 2011 [75] reported an experimental study by Duineveld, where coa-
lescence occurred under a critical value of Webber calculated as:
Wecr =DρlU
2r
σ≺ 0.36 (3.33)
Senez and Etienne 2011 [75] used an equivalent radius in Eq. 3.33 to determine if the
bubble will coalesce or not. If the critical Weber number is not exceeded, Eq. 3.34 is used
to determine if the coalescence will still happen or not.
65
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Wecr =2Rρl(Ul − Ub)2
σ≺ 6.6 (3.34)
3.4.7 Bubble breakup
Bubble breakup is one phenomenon that occur when severe volume deformation takes place.
While the surface tension forces tries to keep the bubble in a spherical shape, the pressure,
turbulence, or velocity gradients act on the bubble surface. These forces tend to penetrate
the bubble surface resulting in changes in the bubble shape to keep balance between the
internal and external forces. When the applied forces are large enough, a neck starts to form
which ends up by bubble breakup.
The breakup starts by bubble deformation resulting from forces balance on the surface.
This deformation could result into necking and the breakup. The resulting bubbles after
breakup could have the same diameter, in most cases, or they could have different sizes with
different order of magnitude, Liao and Lucas 2009 [45].
Capillary number Ca which represents a ratio between the shear stress and the surface
tension stress plays an important role in determining whether the bubble will breakup or
not. Capillary number can be calculated by
Ca =τvτs
=µldγ
2σ(3.35)
where τv and τs are the viscous and surface tension stresses, µl is the continuous phase
viscosity, liquid in the case of bubbly flow and γ is the shear stress rate.
When the capillary number is increased to a critical value Cacr, the bubble will become
unstable and breakup. The region of Cacr ≤ Ca ≤ kCacr , is dominated by necking, where
the droplet breaks up into two equal-sized bubbles. When the capillary number is suddenly
increased to a value well above Cacr, the bubble is rapidly deformed into a long cylindrical
66
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
shape, which subsequently breaks into a series of fragments. In simple shear flow, k = 2.
Many models were introduced in the literature to determine the value of the critical
capillary number Grace 1982 [22] and Bruijn 1993 [6]. It depends on viscosity ratio and the
flow type.
The size of the new resulting bubbles is usually in the same order of magnitude, specially
if they are resulting from spherical bubble. However, in some cases small bubbles are sheared
of from the original large cap bubble. Liao and Lucas 2009 [45] summarized the breakup
mechanisms and models to be; breakup due to turbulent fluctuation, breakup due to the
viscous shear forces, breakup due to shearing-off and breakup due to interfacial instability.
Richard et al. 2012 [68] define the critical Weber number for a bubble bouncing from the
wall as
Wec = (ρg + αmρl)2RU2
impact
σ= 9, (3.36)
Where αm is the added mass ratio, Uimpact is the impact velocity and σ is the surface
tension. Senez and Etienne 2011 [75] modified this value by adding Bond number Bo to
Webber number. Bond number represents a ratio between the body force, buoyancy, and
the surface tension.
Bo =4g(ρl − ρg)R2
σ(3.37)
Senez and Etienne 2011 [75] considered the bubble to be stable when Eq. (3.38) is
satisfied
Bo+We < 9 (3.38)
67
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
3.4.8 Bubble compressibility
For a bubbly flow regime suffering pressure perturbations, bubble could act as pressure
dampers. When the pressure increases, the bubble size decreases allowing more room for the
liquid and vice versa. Brennen 1995 [5] showed an extreme increase in the bubble size at low
pressures. Rayleigh-Plesset equation describes the dynamic response of a gas bubble in liquid
subjected to pressure changes, Brennen 1995 [5]. For constant liquid density ρl, viscosity µl
and uniform properties inside the bubble TB(t) and PB(t), Rayleigh-Plesset equation can be
introduced as a non-linear differential equation in the form:
F (t) = R2dR
dt(3.39)
When evaporation or condensation is occurring at the interface, good approximation of
the bubble radius can be obtained by solving Navier Stokes equation for the bubble and
using the normal stress as a function of the bubble pressure PB.
PB(t)− P∞(t)
ρL= R
dR2
dt2+
3
2
(dR
dt
)2
+4νLR
dR
dt+
2σ
ρLR(3.40)
Assuming isothermal compression/expansion for the bubble, the pressure inside the bub-
ble could be calculated from the vapor pressure Pv(TB), the gas pressure and radius at the
beginning of the simulation PGo and Ro, Eq. (3.41). Also, PGo can be obtained from Eq.
(3.42).
PB(t) = Pv(TB) + PGo
(Ro
R
)3
(3.41)
PGo = P∞(0) + Pv(T∞) +2σ
Ro
(3.42)
68
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Then Rayleigh-Plesset equation becomes,
Pv(T∞)− P∞(t)
ρL+Pv(TB)− Pv(T∞)
ρL+
PGoρL
(TBT∞
)(Ro
R
)3k
= RdR2
dt2+
3
2
(dR
dt
)2
+4νLR
dR
dt+
2σ
ρLR(3.43)
The first term in Eq. (3.43) is the driving term determined by the liquid conditions far
from the bubble. The second term in Eq. (3.43) is the thermal term which can affect the
bubble dynamics pretty much. The third term accounts for the quantity of contaminant gas
whose partial pressure PGo at a reference radius Ro and temperature T∞. The symbol k in
this term stands for the polytropic index. For isothermal bubble temperature, k = 1 while
k = γ for isentropic relation.
Although the effect of the thermal term in Eq. 3.43 on the bubble dynamic, this term
will be ignored for simplicity and the bubble will be assumed “inertially controlled”. Now,
by assuming that the bubble is initially stable at time t = 0 and liquid pressure P∞(0), the
gas partial pressure PGo will be:
PGo = P∞(0) + Pv(T∞) +2σ
Ro
(3.44)
Substituting from 3.44 into 3.43,
Pv(T∞)− P∞(t)
ρL+PGoρL
(Ro
R
)3k
= RR +3
2(R)2 +
4νLR
R+
2σ
ρLR(3.45)
By applying dimensional analysis, Rayleigh-Plesset equation was decreased to Eq. (3.43).
Appendix A shows the detailed steps of the dimensional analysis.
69
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Pv(T∞)− P∞(t)
ρL+PGoρL
(Ro
R
)3k
= RR +3
2(R)2 +
2σ
ρLR(3.46)
Isothermal expansion of the gas is assumed to overcome the difficulty by considering the
change in gas temperature while ignoring the heat transfer and the bubbles generation across
the tube bundle.
By taking this assumption into account, and by substituting of PGo from Eq. (3.42)
1
ρL
[P∞(0)+
2σ
Ro
](Ro
R
)3
−P∞(t)
ρL+
1
ρL
[Pv(T∞)
(1+
(Ro
R
)3)]= RR+
3
2(R)2 +
2σ
ρLR(3.47)
As Eq. 3.47 is still highly nonlinear, a numerical simulation attempt was decided for the
original Rayleigh-Plesset.
3.5 Fluid structure interaction
The coupling between the fluid and the structure can be divided into two main points; the
streamtube movement following the vibrating tube and the fluid forces of the streamtube on
the structure (tube).
The streamtube is assumed to follow the tube vibration with a time lag resulting from the
fluid inertia. Similar to Lever and Weaver 1986a [41], the time lag was assumed to be zero
at the tube itself (between attachment and separation). At the streamtube inlet, the time
is assumed to be maximum and function of the vibration frequency ω, streamtube length lo
and the upstream velocity Uo and related by: equal to
τ(s)−so =ωloUo
(3.48)
70
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Between the stream tube entrance to the attachment, a linear relation between τ and s
was assumed to find τ(s).
Also, the fluid forces (FEI) on the vibrating tube were calculated by integrating the
pressure between the attachment to the separation. For each streamtube, this force is:
FFEI = ±∫ so
sa
pdA (3.49)
where the positive/negative sign are used for the two channels, p is the pressure, dA is
the normal area
71
Chapter 4
Model Implementation
The two phase model was implemented in the time domain simulation model developed by
Hassan and Hayder 2008 [23]. The flow is discretized axially into a number of flow cells.
Each flow cell contains two flow channels. Each channel has a length of So and a cross
section area of A. Positions along the channels are represented by the curvilinear coordinate
s, which originates at the moving center tube. For the normal square bundle, the coordinate
s coincides with the vertical coordinate. The flexible tube contacts the channel between the
attachment −sa to the separation ss. Figure 4.1 shows a screen shot of the simulation, where
the vibrating tube appears at the top of the figure. The inner boundaries of the channels
vibrates with the tube. The flow channel boundary along the contact length (−sa < s < ss)
was assumed to instantaneously follow the tube motion. The width at the inlet boundary
at the channel origin s = −so was assumed to be non vibrating (No area perturbation).
Between the inlet boundary and the attachment (−so < s < −sa), the channel width was
assumed to change with time around a mean value Ao. The amplitude of the channel width
oscillation is a and is function of the location. The channel width oscillation a(s, t) follows
the tube oscillation but with a time lag τ(s). The time lag is proportional to the location s.
The maximum time lag is at the channel inlet and could be calculated from
72
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 4.1: Screen shot from the simulations showing the vibrating tube (blue) surroundedby the flow channels. The channel oscillating boundary is shown in red
τmax =εsoUo
(4.1)
where ε is the vibration frequency in rad/s. A linear relation was assumed to calculate
the time lag τs at any position.
4.1 Conservation equations
The governing fluid flow equations were solved to determine the flow velocity and the pressure
each time step. As the equivalent density is changing with the bubbles motion, compress-
73
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
ibility needs to be taken into account The unsteady continuity equation is given by:
∂
∂t(ρA) +
∂
∂sρAU = 0 (4.2)
Substituting with the expression for A and U in the above equation,
∂
∂t(A+ a)ρ+
∂
∂sρ(A+ a)(U + u) = 0 (4.3)
∂
∂sρ(AU + Au+ aU + au) = − ∂
∂tρA (4.4)
integrating both sides w.r.t. s
ρ((A+ a)U + (A+ a)u) = −∫ s
−so
∂
∂tρAds (4.5)
Now the perturbation velocity can be expressed as
u =−1
A+ a[(A+ a)U +
1
ρ
∫ s
−so
∂
∂tρAds (4.6)
The integrals in the above equation are both space and time dependent. The integration
in the above equation was carried out by 5-point Gaussian numerical integrals.
The momentum equation is given by:
∂
∂t(ρU) + U
∂ρU2
∂s= −∂P
∂s+ ρg (4.7)
Again, by using the same analysis as before, the equation becomes
74
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
∂
∂t(ρ(U + u)) +
∂
∂sρ(U + u)2 = − ∂
∂s(P + p) + ρg (4.8)
∂
∂t(ρu) +
∂
∂sρ(U + u)2 − ρg = − ∂
∂sp (4.9)
and now the perturbation pressure can be expressed as
p =
∫ s
−soρgds− ρ(U + u)2 −
∫ s
−so
∂
∂t(ρu)ds (4.10)
And again, the integration in the above equation was carried out by 5-point Gaussian
numerical integrals to obtain the pressure perturbation p.
4.2 Simulations
A FORTRAN 95 was used as the programming language while Matlab was used for post
processing. The code used parallel processing to decrease the simulation time. The available
processors was divided between the two flow channels according to the number of bubbles.
At the beginning, the code calculates the channel length, the tube natural frequency, and the
actual void fraction in each channel. The bubble generation process starts. After generating
each bubble, a check is done to compare the current void fraction with the required one.
Figure 4.2 shows a diagrammatic sketch of the code organization. As seen from the figure,
first the code read the input file and prepare the channels and parameters. Bubbles were
generated randomly in the flow channels. The size distribution of the bubble follows the
recommendation of Wallis 1968 [81]. Initially each bubble was assumed to move vertically
at a velocity equal to the mean flow and with zero lateral velocity. Non-zero lateral velocity
develops as other effects such as collision, lift, and drag forces develop.
Each time step starts with the bubble loop. More details of the bubble loop will be
75
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
explained in Section 4.3. Then the conservation equations are solved and the pressure is
integrated to find the tube displacement.
4.3 Bubble loop
Bubble loop starts by calculating the forces and applying Rayleigh-Plesset on each bubble.
Based on the forces, the bubble velocities are updated. Then each bubble is checked for
reaching critical radius for breakup. Bubble coalescence was checked by one processor in
each channel to avoid duplicating the same coalescence. To speed up this check, the bubbles
were sorted by their vertical locations in the channel.
In each channel there are large number of moving bubbles. Detecting the motion of each
bubble is essential for the success of simulation. In general, there are N moving bubbles and
M walls (channel walls and tubes). Each bubble can collide with other moving bubbles as
well as the walls. It is important to keep track of (N2) +NM pairs of objects at every time
step. This can be very time consuming specially for high void fractions as the number of
bubbles gets large. Therefore, the number of possible colliding pairs must be reduced. The
can be carried out by determining the candidate collisions pairs (CCP) which are pairs in
close proximity to each other. A hierarchical bounding box was used. In this scheme, each
bubble is surrounded by a bounding box. CCP are determined if the bounding boxes of the
individual bubbles are overlapping. Once CPP are determined, collision is tested.
At the end of the bubble loop, bubbles were assigned their new locations in the channel.
displacement.
4.3.1 Solution of Rayleigh-Plesset equation
Alehossein and Qin 2007 [1] attempted to solve Rayleigh-Plesset equation using various
numerical techniques. The authors showed that all the tested techniques were unstable
76
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 4.2: Diagrammatic sketch showing the flowchart of the simulation
77
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 4.3: Diagrammatic sketch showing the flowchart of the bubble loop
78
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
when the pressure change was relatively high. To solve this instability issue, Alehossein and
Qin 2007 [1] suggested a technique to use variable timesteps which lead to time steps as low
as 10−37s.
In the current model, it is unreasonable to use a similar, computationally expensive,
technique as the expected pressure perturbation should be only due to the change in fluid
velocity. So, it was decided to use Modified Euler Equation. To determine the reasonable
time step, a MATLAB code was used to solve the equation with different time steps, pressure
perturbation function and different pressure frequency. The test showed that dividing the
main time step, used in the two-phase model, into 10,000 to 100,000 resulted in stable
simulation, except for the very small bubbles (R = 10−5m). Decreasing the sub-timestep
further did not change the bubbles size with the time. Figure 4.4 shows the bubble size
response for a sinusoidal pressure wave. The time step selected for this solution was 10−10sec
(equivalent to 110,000
of the time step). To avoid floating error, a safety factor of 10 was applied
and all simulations were conducted with a sub-time step of 10−11sec.
From Fig. 4.4, it could be noticed that the larger bubbles relative response (R/Ro) is
much higher to the pressure wave. Given that the larger bubbles represent higher ratio of
the total gas volume and their absolute response will be order of magnitudes higher than
small bubbles. Another code was written to simulate the flow with pre-determined bubbles’
number and radii. The total change in the gas volume was around ±5%. By ignoring the
compressibility of small bubbles (R = 10−5m), it was shown that change in total gas volume
was affected by less than 0.02%. So, it was decided to avoid applying Rayleigh-Plesset
subroutine for small bubbles while running the simulations.
79
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 4.4: Response of bubble radius to a sinusoidal pressure wave. Time step = 10−10sec
4.3.2 Coalescence and breakup procedure
Sections (3.4.6) and (3.4.7) discussed the criteria for bubble-bubble coalescence and bubble
breakup. For each timestep, the proximity of each bubble to another bubble or approaching
the wall is checked. If the bubble was found to be impacting another bubble, coalescence
criteria is checked. The coalescence criteria here was taken similar to Senez and Etienne 2011
[75] by using an equivalent radius in Eq. (3.33) to determine if the bubbles will coalesce
or not. If the critical Weber number is exceeded, Eq. (3.34) is used to determine if the
coalescence will still happen or not. If the coalescence condition was met, a new bubble
is generated which has a mass equal to the original bubbles and had an internal pressure
equal to the initial pressure calculated from the force balance on the bubble surface. If the
coalescence criteria fails, the two bubble bounce as will be discussed later.
When a bubble impacts the wall, breakup criteria is checked. If breakup occurs, the
bubble breaks up into two equivalent bubbles. The location of the new bubbles are 0.1Rnew
80
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
apart from each other. This distance is assumed to avoid collision between the two new
generated bubbles at the same time step. If there is no breakup, bubble bouncing from the
wall is assumed.
In the current model, it is assumed that the flow is one dimensional inviscid laminar
flow. This means other mechanisms of bubble breakup mentioned are not applicable. The
pressure gradient around the bubble is ignored and the pressure is assumed to be constant
on the bubble outer surface to keep the spherical shape. This resulted in having one source
of breakup which is hitting the channel walls. However, this one source of breakup was not
enough to compensate coalescence and bubbles continued to coalesce and grow until their
radii approach the channel width. To solve this problem, a limit should be put on the bubble
size.
According to Beguin (2010), reported by Senez and Etienne 2011 [75] in a two-phase
internal flow, a bubble subjected to the wake of other bubbles can be stable up to a radius of
7 mm. This bubble size is considered very large when compared to the streamtube dimension
in the current study.
Figure 4.5 shows an example of bubble breakup. The first two frames indicate one bubble
before it is divided in the third frame. The last frame shows the two new bubbles after moving
away from each other.
Figure 4.6 shows an example of bubbles Coalescence. In the figure, the two bubbles in
the red frame approach each other. As the distance between them decreases they coalesce
and appear as one bubble.
4.4 Steady State Simulation
To enable long simulation time while keeping the same mass fraction in the tube, a new
bubble is generated at the flow cell entrance when a bubble leaves the flow cell. The mass,
81
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 4.5: Snapshots from the simulation showing bubble breakup
82
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 4.6: Snapshots from the simulation showing bubble coalescence
83
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
volume, velocity and pressure of the two bubbles are kept the same. This enable simulating
large time with the same mass fraction and flow conditions.
The simulation starts by imposing initial displacement to the tube to excite the fluide-
lastic instability. And by dividing the time domain into infinitesimal time steps, the area
of each channel could be obtained for each time step. By solving the continuity and mo-
mentum equations using the average density at each section of the channel, the velocity and
the pressure are obtained. Then the two phase flow model is applied to predict the bubbles
velocities, locations for the next time step. Integrating the pressure around the tube enables
calculating the fluidelastic instability force FFEI . By using this force in equation (3.1), the
displacement of the tube is obtained for the next time step. Running the simulation for a
period of time would allow checking the instability of the tube at the simulation conditions.
Simulation were conducted on SHARCNET. The average simulation time on 4 nodes ranged
between 10 hours to 6 days depending on the number of bubbles.
Average void fraction inside each channel was calculated as the fraction of area occupied
by the air, divided by the whole streamtube area at no perturbation ΣπR2
(Sattachement−So)∗W . At any
section, the local instantaneous void fraction was calculated as the fraction of the channel’s
instantaneous width occupied by the gas αlocal = length occupied by gaschannel width
. This was affected by the
pressure perturbation due to the change of bubbles’ size. Time steps was selected to be 10−5
seconds. Decreasing the time step further showed no effect on the simulation result while
the simulation time was almost doubled. Chapter 5 will show how the time step affected
the simulations. Due to the high nonlinearity of Rayleigh-Plesset equation, each time step
was divided to sub-timesteps when solving the equation. The sub-timestep was selected to
be 10−11 seconds.
84
Chapter 5
Results and Discussion
This chapter presents all the simulations results followed by a discussion. The first section,
5.1, will present the simulations of the homogeneous model to be compared later with the
current model. Simulation procedure of the current model showing the inputs and how the
stability threshold is determined will be presented in section 5.2. A parametric sensitivity
study is presented in sections 5.3 and 5.4 in order to show how much the results is affected
by changing the sub-model parameters. Model validation, using experimental results, is
presented in section 5.5. Section 5.6 will compare the slip ratio between the average gas
velocity to the average liquid velocity obtained from the current model with those obtained
by applying Feenstra’s model [19] on experimental data. Section 5.7 presents the effect of
changing the density ratio between the gas and liquid on the stability threshold. The effect
of the pitch to diameter ratio P/D on the instability is presented in section 5.8.
Early simulations showed the need of a very long simulation time (around 30 days).
For this reason the code was reconstructed to enable parallel processing when possible.
During the parallel simulations, the number of available processors is divided between the
two channels based on the number of bubbles. By dividing the total number of bubbles (in
the two channels) by the number of processors and approximating to the nearest integer.
85
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
A condition was put to guarantee at least one processor for each channel. During the
simulations in each channel, the bubbles are divided on the dedicated processors, evenly.
All processors (dedicated for one channel) stop after doing the calculations on the assigned
bubbles and wait for the impact loop. Bubble-to-bubble impact loop was done in one thread
for each channel. Solving the continuity and momentum equations is performed in parallel as
well (one thread per channel). After calculating the fluid forces on the tube, the displacement
is calculated by single processor.
Simulations were performed on SHARCNET servers. Each simulation requested between
4 to 6 processors and a total of 2 GB ram. Simulations time varied according to the number
of bubbles. Higher void fractions, in general needed more processing time. Many simu-
lations were not successfully completed because of exceeding the maximum time limit on
SHARCNET (7 days). To overcome this problem, the code was modified to save the results
every given number of timesteps. This number was selected to be 10, 000 time steps which
is equivalent to 0.1 sec.
For some selected simulations, all bubble, channel data were recorded to allow debugging
and/or testing the code. All post processing was performed using Matlab. Because of the
large amount of data being processed, a Matlab code was developed to create simulations
videos using these data. This enabled debugging the code by visual observations in addition
to the regular debugging techniques.
Simulations conditions were selected similar to Pettigrew et al. 1989a [61] to enable
comparison. Air properties at atmospheric conditions is used for the gas properties. Unless
otherwise mentioned, all simulations were performed by the conditions in table 5.1.
Air was treated as an ideal gas to calculate the gas density using the ideal gas relation,
p =1
ρRT (5.1)
86
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Table 5.1: Simulation conditions
General
Tube Diameter d [mm] 12.7
P/D 1.47
Time step [s] 10−5
Rayleigh-Plesset time step [s] 10−11
Liquid properties
Density [kg/m3]1000
Kinematic viscosity ν [m2/s] 10−6
Initial displacement [mm] 0.2
Surface tension σ [N/m] 6× 10−2
Gas properties
Temperature [oC] 300
Initial pressure inside the bubbles [Pa] 105
Gas Constant R [J/kg.K] 287
87
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
The mass damping parameter MDP, in the stability maps, was calculated using the total
mass mt, homogeneous density ρh and the damping in air δa.
MDP =mtotalδaρhd2
(5.2)
The damping was calculated using
δa = 2πζa (5.3)
ζa was assumed to be 0.01 in all simulations. For the experimental data, it was assumed
ζa = 0.01 if no information was reported. This value of damping is considered very when
compared to the damping in the CANDU steam generator. So the assumption is conservative
when compared to the actual applications. And this assumption agrees as well with the
experimental setups used in the literature such as [61, 50, 19, 46] who reported a measured
value of ζ ≤ 1%.
The reduced flow velocity was calculated using the tube diameter d, the tube frequency
in the mixture f , and the average flow velocity of the mixture.
Ur =Uavgfd
(5.4)
The average flow velocity Uavg in the above equation is calculated using the homogeneous
density, mass flow rate of the mixture and the flow area
Uavg =mmixture
ρhA(5.5)
Using the homogeneous velocity and density on the flow maps was selected to enable
comparison with the data published in the literature.
88
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
5.1 Homogeneous model
First set of simulation was performed using the homogeneous model. This model assumes
homogeneous flow velocity between the gas and liquid. Although it this was proved to
be wrong assumption by [19, 50], the model was used here for comparison purpose. The
homogeneous density is calculated using:
ρhom = αρg + (1− α)ρl (5.6)
And by using the time domain model, developed by Hassan and Hayder 2008 [23] for
single phase flow, the fluidelastic instability threshold of a homogeneous mixture across tube
bundle was obtained. The simulations were performed at various reduced flow velocities,
Ur ranged between 0.4 to 8. For each flow velocity, the vibrating tube was given an initial
displacement of 0.2mm. The closest velocity to the marginally stable oscillation was assumed
to be the instability threshold. Figure (5.1) shows the simulations at four different velocities.
It could be noticed that from Fig. (5.1 a) that the vibration amplitude decreases with the
time until it reaches stability. Similar trend is obtained at Ur = 3.5 in Fig. (5.1 b). At
Ur = 4.0, Fig Fig. (5.1 c), the stability seems to be happening after slightly longer time.
Clear instability is shown in Fig. (5.1 d) where the reduced flow velocity Ur was equal to
4.2. In this case, the instability threshold was taken as Ur = 4.1.
In the case of multiple stability region (low MDP as shown by [41]), the higher stable
velocity was taken as the stability threshold.
89
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.1: Tube response for 25% void fraction at various flow velocity using the homoge-neous density model
5.2 Current model
The homogeneous model used in the above section aimed to obtain stability maps for single
phase flow. So, the inputs to the model were the reduced flow velocity Ur and the mass
damping parameter MDP in addition to the fluid and tube properties. The fluid velocity
was then calculated by the code to start the simulation. On the other hand, the mechanistic
model developed in this study aimed mainly to predict the stability threshold for a case
by case instead of drawing stability map. The reason is to enable validating the model
by simulating the exact experimental conditions. So, the input to the current model was
90
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
customized to be the tube mass per unit length mt, damping in the air δa and the average
flow velocity Uavg. Most experimental data report these parameters.
5.2.1 Stability threshold
To obtain stability threshold, simulations were conducted on a range of velocities (usually
10 velocities). The range was selected to start by 0.5m/s and ends by twice the velocity
expected to be the stability threshold. Once the stability is determined to be between two
certain velocities, another set of simulations is conducted with a range of velocities scanning
this range to obtain more precise value.
Figure 5.2 shows the tube displacement for various flow velocities. By comparing figures
5.1 and 5.2, a different trend of the vibration amplitude will be noticed. In Fig. 5.1, corre-
sponding to the homogeneous model, the vibration amplitude decays or increases smoothly
with time. But in Fig. 5.2, corresponding to the current model, the amplitude oscillates
up and down while decaying or growing. This behaviour, obtained from the current model
simulations, is expected for the two phase flow and was shown experimentally by Moran 2007
[50], see Fig. 5.3. Moran 2007 [50] obtained the same trend for all the experiments conducted
at the range of void fractions covered by the current study. Although using different working
fluid (R11), The reason that could explain this behaviour is the instantaneous change of
fluid density around the tube. This density change is caused by the change of local volume
fraction. The stability threshold in Fig. 5.2 was taken at a flow velocity V = 1.31m/s.
Figure 5.4 shows a comparison between the stability map obtained by the current model
and the homogeneous model. The figure shows that the FEI threshold using the homogeneous
model is higher than that obtained by the current model. The difference between the two
models is higher at low void fraction and decreases as the void fraction reaches 30%.
This trend was not expected as the homogeneous equilibrium model was expected to
91
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.2: Tube response for 25% void fraction at various flow velocity using the currentmodel
have closer prediction at the low void fractions where the effect of the gas phase is still
insignificant. However, this result could be returned to the existence of multiple stability
region at this low void fraction (low mass damping parameter MDP ). Figure (2.6), in
chapter 2, shows a stability map reported by Lever and Weaver 1986b [42] which clarify the
multiple stability region by the dotted lines. The existence of bubbles causes rapid change
of the fluid density, velocity and pressure around the tube. This results in rapid change of
the fluidelastic instability force. With the existence of the multiple stability lines on the
flow map, crossing the stability line, whether up or down is easy. Once the tube crosses the
92
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.3: Tube response for 68% void fraction, from Moran 2007 [50]
Figure 5.4: Comparison between the stability map obtained by the current model and bythe homogeneous model
93
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
instability line, it never come back to stability.
5.2.2 FEI Force acting on the tube
In the simulation conducted by the homogeneous equilibrium model, the forces on the tube
was a pure sine wave that have the same frequency of the tube displacement. However, in
the current model, the integration of the forces acting on the tube showed some deviation
from this pure sine wave. Figure (5.5) shows the tube displacement and the fluid forces
versus the time at void fraction 25% and average flow velocity of Uavg = 1.2m/s. From the
figure, an oscillation of the fluid forces with high frequency could be noticed. Also forces
peaks (impulses) that occurs regularly could be noticed. This behaviour of the fluidelastic
instability forces can be returned to the change of of fluid density around the tube.
The force impulses described in figure (5.5) changed in the magnitude between low values
(1 N or less) to very high values (More than 1 kN). Figures (5.6 and (5.7) show an example of
this amplitude change. When comparing the three figures (5.5, 5.6 and (5.7), we can notice
this change in the amplitude.
The change of the FEI forces can be the reason of the non-smooth oscillation obtained
by the current model. Next section (5.2.3) shows an example of the density change in the
flow channel. Also the effect of bubble compressibility is discussed in section (5.3).
5.2.3 Density distribution in the flow channels
Trying to explain the reason of the force peaks, the average density at different positions
in the flow channels was plotted against the time. Figure (5.8) shows the change of the
average density with the time at 4 different locations ((a)Left channel s = 0 (tube center),
(b) Right channel s = 0 (tube center); (c)Left channel s = −so2
; (d)Right channel s = −so2
;
(e)Left channel s = −so4
; (f)Right channel s = −so4
; (g)Left channel s = −so (tube entrance)
94
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.5: Tube displacement and fluid forces on the tube vs. time, Uavg = 1.2m/s andα = 25%
; (h)Right channel s = −so (tube entrance)) in the two channels. As seen from the figure,
the density change
5.3 Sensitivity studies
As discussed in chapter 3, there are many sub models integrated together to obtain the overall
framework. These sub-models were obtained from the literature where several criterion were
95
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.6: Tube displacement and fluid forces on the tube vs. time, Uavg = 1m/s andα = 25%
available. This section applies a sensitivity study on the current model to see the effect of
using these various sub-models. This study aimed to check the model limitations and tune
the model parameters if needed.
5.3.1 Effect of initial bubble size distribution
Section (3.4.1) discussed the generation of the bubble algorithm. As mentioned, initial bubble
size distribution was reported in the literature as beta distribution, Senez and Etienne 2011
96
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.7: Tube displacement and fluid forces on the tube vs. time, Uavg = 1m/s andα = 32%
[75], Wallis 1968 [81] in vertical pipes. Ulbrich and Mewes 1994 [80], Noghrehkar et al. 1999
[52], Feenstra 2000 [19] and Moran 2007 [50] reported difference between the flow regimes
in vertical pipes and tube bundles. So, it is crucial to study the effect of the randomly
generated bubbles’ distribution on the instability threshold.
The Fortran code was customized to have an input distribution parameter to switch
between the beta, normal and uniform distributions. Simulations were conducted using the
same input parameters except the distribution parameter. The simulation time for the beta
97
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.8: Average density in the channel vs. the time at different locations. (a)Left channels = 0 (tube center), (b) Right channel s = 0 (tube center); (c)Left channel s = −so
2; (d)Right
channel s = −so2
; (e)Left channel s = −so4
; (f)Right channel s = −so4
; (g)Left channel s = −so(tube entrance) ; (h)Right channel s = −so (tube entrance)
distribution was noticeably higher. Table 5.2 shows the difference between the stability
threshold velocities obtained by both the beta and normal distributions.
Figure 5.9 shows the effect of initial beta distribution and normal distribution. As seen
from the figure, the initial size distribution has a minor effect on the stability threshold.
This is explained by that the bubble size reaches a distribution different than the initial one.
Because of having number of coalescence higher than the number of breakups as discussed
in chapters 3 and 4, the bubbles coalesce with each other and a different distribution is
obtained. This was also noticed by following the number of bubbles during simulations. It
should be noted that the beta distribution correlation was obtained in a vertical pipe, not a
98
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Table 5.2: The stability threshold velocities for both beta and normal distributions
Void fraction Instability threshold velocity [m/s]
Beta distribution
5% 0.77
10% 0.81
15% 0.95
20% 1.09
25% 1.26
30% 1.30Normal distribution
5% 0.82
10% 0.94
15% 1.04
20% 1.20
25% 1.36
30% 1.29
99
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.9: Effect of initial bubble distribution
tube bundle.
Based on this result, and by considering the lower simulation time, the normal distribu-
tion was taken as a default for the code. The possibility to change the distribution from the
input file using the distribution parameter was kept though.
5.3.2 Effect of initial bubbles size
The number of bubbles in the channels affects the simulation time significantly. Also as
discussed in chapter 4, the small bubbles, D < 10−2mm need small sub-time-step when
solving Rayleigh-Plesset equation. Hence, in the bubble generation stage, it was reasonable
to avoid going below certain radius. The selection of this radius was done by trial and error.
Table 5.3 shows the stability threshold velocity for three different cases; Rmin = 0.01Rmax,
Rmin = 0.1Rmax, Rmin = 0.2Rmax. Figure 5.10 shows the stability map for the same three
100
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
cases. Here, Rmin is the minimum radius of the generated bubbles while Rmax is the radius
where the larger number of bubbles exist. This limitation of the bubble radius was applied
only at the bubble generation stage. During simulations, bubbles are allowed to breakup
and reach smaller sizes than Rmin until reaching an absolute value of 0.01mm diameter.
Table 5.3: The effect of the minimum bubble radius at the bubble generation stage on thestability threshold
Void fraction Instability threshold velocity [m/s]
Rmin = 0.01×Rmax 0.1×Rmax 0.2×Rmax
5% 0.77 0.82 0.75
10% 0.8 0.94 0.84
15% 0.89 1.04 0.91
20% 1.05 1.20 1.08
25% 1.24 1.36 1.26
30% 1.31 1.29 1.31
As shown from Fig. 5.10, the initial bubble size has minor effect on the stability threshold.
Combining this with what has been discussed in section 5.3.1, it could be concluded that the
initial bubble size and distribution have minor effect on the stability threshold. To justify
this, a coalescence and breakup counters were set in each simulation and it was found that
the small bubbles coalesce with each other forming larger bubbles. This was noticed by
the existing large number of coalescences than breakup in the first (2− 3seconds). Then a
balance between the number of coalescence and breakup occur.
101
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.10: Effect of initial bubble size
5.3.3 Effect of time step
On one hand, decreasing the time step, increase the simulation time exponentially. On the
other hand, large time step would affect the accuracy. That is why selecting a reasonable
time step for the simulations is an important issue. The recommended time step by the
model introduce by [23] was 10−5s. This was done for airflow where the velocities reaches
higher values than the current model. However, the same time step was selected for the
current model. The reason was to be able to capture the bubbles movement relative to
each other. Simulations were performed using various time steps to study the effect of the
time step on the stability threshold. Some of the simulations with time step 10−4s crashed
because of the bubbles intersecting over each other instead of bouncing. Simulations with
time step 5× 10−5 continued without crashing. Table 5.4 presents the stability threshold for
three different timesteps while Fig. 5.11 shows the stability map for these cases. It could
102
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
be noticed that for the low velocities, the time step between 10−6 to 5× 10−4 has no effect
on the simulations. However, for higher velocities the simulations conducted with time step
5 ∗ 10−5 shows slight difference. From this, it would be recommended to use time step of
10−5 or lower.
Table 5.4: The effect of timestep on the stability threshold velocity
Void fraction Instability threshold velocity [m/s]
Timestep [sec] 5× 10−4 1× 10−5 1× 10−6
5% 0.78 0.82 0.78
10% 0.84 0.94 0.82
15% 0.97 1.04 0.96
20% 1.05 1.20 1.1
25% 1.2 1.36 1.24
30% 1.31 1.29 1.31
As mentioned in chapter 4, a sub-timestep was used for Rayleigh-Plesset equation and
it was selected to be 1× 10−11sec. An attempt to see the effect of this sub-timestep on the
threshold velocity was started. However, many of the simulations having higher timestep
crashed because of floating point error which indicate that the solution of Rayleigh-Plesset
was unstable. Also, using lower timestep was not feasible as the simulation time increased
by an order of magnitude. So, it was decided to perform this test by solving Rayleigh-
Plesset equation separately using different timesteps, away from the two phase code. This
was presented in chapter 4. Also, studying the effect of including bubble compressibility was
performed and the results is presented in the next section.
103
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.11: Effect of time step
5.3.4 Effect of including bubble compressibility
The bubble compressibility was implemented in the current model by solving Rayleigh-
Plesset equation. Figure 5.12 shows the effect of disabling Rayleigh-Plesset equation. It could
be seen from the figure that the disabling Rayleigh Plesset equation increased the stability
threshold, specially at high void fraction. Although the difference did not exceed 15%,
disabling Rayleigh-Plesset equation shifted the stability threshold towards the homogeneous
model.
Taking bubbles compressibility into consideration is a novel technique to be applied in
the FEI research. Although the difference in the stability threshold did not exceed 15%, in
the current study, further research is needed to study the effect of fluid compressibility in
two phase flow for higher void fractions and different fluid properties.
104
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Table 5.5: The effect of bubble compressibility on the stability threshold velocity
Void fraction Instability threshold velocity [m/s]
Taking compressibility into effect Ignoring compressibility
5% 0.82 0.78
10% 0.94 0.88
15% 1.04 1.2
20% 1.20 1.3
25% 1.36 1.36
30% 1.29 1.4
5.4 Effect of Breakup and Coalescence criteria
5.4.1 Effect of size breakup criteria
As discussed in chapter 3, the sides of the streamtubes were assumed as flexible walls. No
fluid was allowed to cross these walls. Also this model considered the liquid as a continuous
phase. Because of these reasons, a criteria was used to force the large bubbles to breakup.
The default criteria was to force the bubble to breakup when its diameter is equal to 0.9
of the streamtube width. This criteria was compared by another two criterion where the
forced breakup occurs when the bubble diameter is 0.7 and 0.5 of the channel width. Figure
5.13 shows a comparison between these three cases. As seen from the figure, except for one
point at 25% void fraction, the stability threshold increases with decreasing the maximum
allowed bubble size. In other words, the stability threshold moves towards the single phase.
However, the difference between the stability in the three cases does not exceed 10%.
105
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.12: Effect of gas compressibility
5.4.2 Coalescence criteria
The coalescence criteria used in this study was similar to that adopted by Senez and Etienne
2011 [75]. They adopted that coalescence will occur if any of these two criterion occur;
Wecr =DρlU
2r
σ≺ 0.36 (5.7)
Wecr =2Rρl(Ul − Ub)2
σ≺ 6.6 (5.8)
Figure 5.14 shows a comparison between the simulations adopted same technique (Default
Criteria), and using equation any of Eq. 5.7 (criteria 2) or Eq. 5.8 (criteria 3) alone. The
exact threshold velocities are presented in table 5.7. The figure shows that stability threshold
when using criteria 2 (Eq. 5.7) is higher less than that of criteria 3 which agrees better with
the criteria adopted by Senez and Etienne 2011 [75]. This could be explained by that criteria
3 precedes criteria 2 most of the time, so it agrees better with the default criteria adopted
in the current model.
106
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Table 5.6: The effect of forced breakup criteria on the stability threshold velocity
Void fraction Instability threshold velocity [m/s]Dmax
Wchannel0.5 0.7 0.9
5% 0.8 0.78 0.82
10% 0.89 0.86 0.94
15% 1.01 0.99 1.04
20% 1.15 1.1 1.20
25% 1.28 1.29 1.36
30% 1.34 1.31 1.29
5.5 Model Validation
To validate the model, simulations were conducted for air-water mixture at atmospheric
pressure and room temperature. at the conditions shown in table 5.1 These parameters are
identical to those of Pettigrew et al. 1989 [61, 62] work to facilitate comparison with the
experimental result. In each simulation, the tube was given an initial displacement and no
other force was introduced. Then the tube response was examined for Amplitude decay or
growth.
5.5.1 FEI Threshold (Critical flow Velocity):
Table 5.8 compares the stability threshold velocity obtained from this model with experi-
mental results reported by Pettigrew et al. 1989a [61]. Figure 5.15 compares the stability
map obtained using the current model with the experimental results reported Pettigrew et
al. 1989a [61]. The stability threshold obtained by the current model was the average of
107
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.13: Effect of using different different forced breakup criteria
three simulations to ensure repeatability. The difference between the three simulations did
not exceed 5% except at 32% void fraction where the difference reached 12% of the average.
The figure also shows the stability threshold obtained by the HEM model. As shown in the
figure, the current model was able to predict the FEI threshold accurately. Although Petti-
grew et al. 1989a [61] published data for higher void fractions, the current model could not
simulate the void fractions larger than 35%. This because of the formation of large Taylor
bubbles which was not implemented in the current model.
5.6 Slip
The slip model, introduced by Feenstra 2000 [19] and Feenstra et al. 2003 [18], provides a
qualitative mean to calculate the slip ratio S (the ratio between the gas velocity and the
liquid velocity). The slip S was found to be dependent on Capillary Ca and Richardson Ri
108
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.14: Effect of using different different coalescence criteria
Figure 5.15: Comparison between the results obtained from the current model with experi-ments Pettigrew et al. 1989a [61]
109
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Table 5.7: The effect of coalescence criteria on the stability threshold velocity
Void fraction Instability threshold velocity [m/s]
Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Default criteria
5% 0.9 0.75 0.82
10% 0.97 0.81 0.94
15% 1.08 0.95 1.04
20% 1.18 1.03 1.20
25% 1.31 1.25 1.36
30% 1.33 1.29 1.29
numbers. The model showed an excellent prediction of the actual two phase density and
void fraction compared to other two phase models, Feenstra 2000 [19] and Moran 2007 [50].
The slip model equations are given by:
S = 1 + 25.7(Ri ∗ Ca)0.5
(P
D
)(5.9)
α =
[1 + S
ρgρl
(1
x− 1
)]−1
(5.10)
Using the slip model, equations (5.9 and 5.10), a value for the slip S was calculated for
the same experimental conditions reported by Pettigrew et al. 1989a [61] and compared with
the slip factor obtained from the simulations. The slip factor obtained from the simulation
was calculated as a mathematical average of the ratio between the bubbles velocity to the
liquid velocity over a period of time (0.1 second). Figure (5.16) shows a comparison of the
slip factor predicted by the current model and Feenstra’s model [19]. The comparison shows
110
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Table 5.8: Comparison between the stability threshold velocity obtained by the currentmodel and the experimental data reported by Pettigrew et al 1989 [61]
Void fraction Instability threshold velocity [m/s]
Current model Experimental data
5% 0.82 0.79
10% 0.94 N/A
15% 1.04 0.97
20% 1.20 N/A
25% 1.36 1.31
30% 1.29 N/A
32% N/A 1.47
good agreement between the current work and Feenstra’s model.
Ca =µlUGσ
(5.11)
Ri =4ρ2G(P −D)
G2p
(5.12)
where σ is the surface tension
Feenstra 2000 [19] and Moran 2007 [50] compared the results with other two phase models
showing better agreement with the experimental data.
111
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Figure 5.16: Comparison between the slip factor obtained by the current model and thecalculated slip using Feenstra’s model [19] applied on the experimental results by Pettigrewet al. 1989a[61]
5.7 Effect of density ratio
A study was performed to see the effect of the density ratio (ρL/ρg) on the stability threshold
using the current model. In this study, air properties were used for the gas for all density
ratios. The initial input pressure was modified to changed the gas density. Six density ratios
were tested; 30, 100, 250, 500, 770 and 1000. The corresponding input pressures are shown
in table 5.9. In the CANDU steam generator, the density ratio between liquid to gas is
around 30.
112
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Table 5.9: The initial input pressure used to obtain the density ratio
Density ratio Initial pressure [bar]
30 30
100 10
250 4
500 2
770 1.3
1000 1
Figure 5.17 shows the predicted stability map obtained by the current model at different
density ratios While table 5.10 shows the threshold velocities obtained. As seen from the
figure, the density ratio shows some effect on the stability threshold especially at the higher
mass damping parameter.
Although it was reported in the literature from experimental results, [50, 19] and others,
that the density ratio has a large effect on the stability threshold, this is not reflected in
Fig. 5.17. This discrepancy could be explained by ignoring other factors while reporting
the effect of density ratio. Some parameters such as the surface tension and viscosity might
share part of this effect. Also the phase change between the liquid-vapor combination which
is not accounted in the current model, would make a difference in the two phase damping.
Further investigations are needed to explain this behaviour.
113
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Fig
ure
5.17
:E
ffec
tof
the
den
sity
rati
oon
the
stab
ilit
yth
resh
old
114
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
5.8 Effect of P/D ratio
Although the pitch to diameter ratio P/D is a factor that has a significant effect on the
instability threshold, it was not studied enough in the literature. This section presents a
study of the effect of P/D ratio on the stability threshold. In this study, air properties were
used for the gas while water properties were used for the liquid. The typical P/D ratio in
the CANDU steam generator is between 1.4 to 1.5. It is worth mention here that the ASME
code for the steam generators does not take P/D ratio into effect.
Figure 5.18 shows the predicted stability map obtained by the current model for three
P/D ratios. Table 5.11 shows the threshold velocities obtained. As seen from the figure, the
P/D ratio shows significant effect on the stability threshold. As P/D ratio increases, the
bundle becomes more stable. This result agrees well with the findings of Hassan and Weaver
2018 [28] for single phase flow.
The P/D in the steam generator design is a factor that control the compactness of the
heat exchanger. Lower P/D ratio, means smaller size heat exchanger for the same Heat
transfer. This of course gives an advantage when the space is limited in the nuclear site.
The reason behind this relation between the instability threshold and the P/D ratio can be
explained by the following; At lower P/D ratio, the tube vibration tries to squeeze a thinner
layer of the fluid. This results in a higher pressure which leads to larger fluid forces on the
tube. Hence, the instability threshold occurs earlier, at lower flow velocity.
The steam generators of San Onfore Nuclear Generating Station SONGS, was design
with a lower P/D to diameter. This caused the failure of the steam generator and permanent
closure of the station due to fluidelastic instability. More studies are needed on the effect
of P/D to guarantee safe design of the compact heat exchangers. Special focus is needed on
the instability in the streamwise direction at low P/D ratio.
115
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Fig
ure
5.18
:E
ffec
tof
P/D
rati
oon
the
stab
ilit
yth
resh
old
116
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Tab
le5.
10:
The
effec
tof
den
sity
rati
oon
the
stab
ilit
yth
resh
old
velo
city
Voi
dfr
acti
onIn
stab
ilit
yth
resh
old
velo
city
[m/s
]
Den
sity
rati
o30
100
250
500
770
1000
5%0.
770.
780.
770.
780.
790.
82
10%
0.79
0.79
0.8
0.82
0.84
0.94
15%
1.02
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.05
1.04
20%
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.32
1.20
25%
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.28
1.31
1.36
30%
1.29
1.29
1.3
1.31
1.29
1.29
117
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
Table 5.11: The effect of P/D ratio on the stability threshold velocity
Void fraction Instability threshold velocity [m/s]
P/D ratio 1.3 1.47 1.6
5% 0.55 0.77 0.9
10% 0.68 0.79 0.97
15% 0.8 1.02 1.1
20% 1.0 1.3 1.3
25% 1.08 1.3 1.36
30% 1.12 1.29 1.4
118
Chapter 6
Conclusion
6.1 Conclusion
An analytical model to predict FEI threshold of two phase flow was presented in this thesis.
The model expands the flow cell model introduced by [41] to cover two phase flow. Time
domain discretization similar to that adopted by Hassan and Hayder 2008 [23], was performed
to enable predicting the stability threshold. The model focused on the bubbly flow regime
where void fraction, calculated using the homogeneous model, is less than 35%. The flow
across the tube bundle is simplified as two phase bubbly inviscid flow in streamtubes. The
model applied force balance on each bubble to predict its location and velocity. Bubbles
interaction with each other as well as interactions with the streamtube walls were taken
into account. The vibrating tube was simplified as a single degree of freedom cantilever.
Comparison of the results with the data from the literature showed a very well agreement
with an absolute error of 15% in the predicted reduced flow velocity. A parametric study
was presented to show the effect of the sub-models and parameters integrated in this model.
The model is considered the first mechanistic model to simulate fluidelastic instability of
two phase flow. Modeling the movement of each bubble separately while taking the bubbles
119
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
interaction the FEI threshold is a novel technique. This technique enabled better estimation
of the fluid density and hence the fluid forces. Accounting for the gas compressibility in two
phase flow is being done for the first time in flow induced vibration research area. Bubble
compressibility showed an effect on the stability threshold. Very promising results were
obtained when simulating air-water mixture.
Although the current model is limited to the air-water mixture, the possibility of expand-
ing the model to simulate other mixtures is possible. A sub-model to simulate the phase
change is required for this step to be completed. Then, phase change should be taken into
account in the governing equations.
The model failed to simulate higher void fraction because of the exponential increase
of the number of collisions between the bubbles. This leads to increasing the simulation
time in addition to the formation of large bubbles that were able to block the flow channels.
To simulate higher void fraction, another model is needed that can deal with large bubbles
(Taylor bubbles) which were not implemented in the current model.
More experimental data are needed to allow enhancing the modeling of FEI, specially for
the normal square bundle. Although the normal square geometry is not used widely, but it
is considered the easiest bundle for modeling purpose. After validating the model, this could
be expanded to include more complex geometries.
The closure of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) very recently confirms
that more analytical models are needed to explain the physics of FEI phenomena in two phase
flow. It should be mentioned that the FEI issues that resulted in the permanent closure of
SONGS was in the streamwise direction. However, it showed some lack of understanding
the physics of FEI.
120
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
6.2 Recommendations for future work
1. Expand the model to cover the droplet flow regime. This could be done by treating
the gas as compressible continuous phase and treating the liquid droplets as dispersed
phase. The U-bend in the CANDU steam generator lies at the top where void fractions
are very high, (90%) or more. At this high void fraction, the mixture density becomes
lower which leads to higher velocities. In addition, the existence of loose supports at
these high velocities is very common.
2. Expand the model to cover the intermittent flow regime by implementing sub-models
that deal with Taylor bubbles.
3. Implement the various geometries of tube bundles in the model. The most important
geometry to be start with is parallel triangle geometry because of its wide use in
the CANDU steam generator. The current model started with the normal square
geometry to simplify the problem. However, the code have taken the expansion of
other geometries into account.
4. Enable phase change during the expansion/compression of bubbles to be able to model
Steam-Water and Freons accurately. When the bubbles expand because of a low sur-
rounding pressure, a phase change happens from the liquid to vapor and vice versa.
The liquid phase in the current model was selected to be water at atmospheric condi-
tions. With the isothermal assumption, the pressure drop needed to be very large to
reach the saturation temperature. However, in the real CANDU steam generator, the
mixture of steam-water is definitely at saturation conditions. This means any drop of
the pressure will cause evaporation and vice versa. So simulating phase change would
enable simulating steam-water and freons mixtures. Phase change might be the reason
of the high two phase damping reported in many studies such as [7, 50].
121
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
5. Taking Reynolds, and capillary numbers into account to present the stability maps.
The effect of fluid viscosity plays a crucial rule in the fluid damping and it could have
an effect on the stability threshold for both single and two phase flow. Also, the surface
tension have an essential rule on controlling the gas-liquid interface and could affect
the stability maps. Both of the viscosity and surface tension are not included in the
reduced flow velocity nor the mass damping parameter. The current model was not
able to focus on their effect because it is not able to simulate the phase change yet.
6. Expanding the model to simulate streamwise FEI. Hassan and Weaver have expanded
the flow cell model for single phase flow to the streamwise direction in a series of
publications [25, 26, 27]. This model could be expanded for two phase flow as well.
122
References
[1] Alehossein, H., and Qin Z., . Numerical analysis of rayleighplesset equation forcavitating water jets. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 72(2007), 780–807.
[2] Alyaldin, L., and Mureithi, N. The effect of transverse tube motion on the un-steady fluid forces in a normal triangle tube array. In Proceedings of the 9th InternationalSymposium on Fluid-Structure Interactions, Flow-Sound Interactions, Flow-Induced Vi-bration and Noise (2018), July 8-11, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
[3] Anderson, B., H. M., and Mohany, A. Modelling of fluidelastic instability ina square inline tube array including the boundary layer effect. Journal of Fluids andStructures 48 (2014), 362 – 375.
[4] Blevins, R. D. Flow Induced Vibration. New York, Van Nostrand, Reinhold, 1997.
[5] Brennen, C. Cavitation and bubble dynamics. Oxford University Press, USA, 1995.
[6] Bruijn, R. Tipstreaming of drops in simple shear flows. Chemical Engineering Science48 (1993), 277284.
[7] Carlucci, L. N. Damping and hydrodynamic mass of a cylinder in simulated two-phase flow. Journal of Mechanical Design 102 (1980), 597–602.
[8] Chen, S. S. Instability mechanism and stability criteria of a group of circular cylinderssubjected to cross-flow part i: Theory. Journal of vibration and Acoustics, Stress andReliability in Design 105 (1983), 51–58.
[9] Chen, S. S. Instability mechanism and stability criteria of a group of circular cylinderssubjected to cross-flow part ii: Numerical results and discussion. Journal of vibrationand Acoustics, Stress and Reliability in Design 105 (1983), 253–260.
[10] Chen, S. S., Jendrzejczyk, J. A., and Wambsganss, M. W. Dynamics of tubesin fluid with tube-baffle interaction. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 107 (1985),7 – 17.
[11] Cheng, L., Ribatski, G., and Thome, J. R. Two-phase flow patterns and flow-pattern maps: Fundamentals and applications. Applied Mechanics Reviews 61 (2008).
123
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
[12] Chesters, A., and Hofman, G. Bubble coalescence in pure liquids. Applied Scien-tific Research 38 (1982), 353–361.
[13] Chesters, A. K. The applicability of dynamic similarity criteria to isothermal, liquid-gas two-phase flows without mass transfer. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 2(1975), 191–212.
[14] Connors, H. J., J. Fluidelastic vibration of tube arrays excited by cross flow. In Flow-Induced Vibration of Heat Exchangers (1970), American Society Mechanical Engineers;New York, NY, pp. 42–56.
[15] Delnoij, E., Lammers, F. A., Kuipers, J. A. M., and van Swaaij W. P. Dy-namic simulation of dispersed gas-liquid two-phase flow using a discrete bubble model.Chemical Engineering Science 52 (1997), 142–148.
[16] Dowlati, R., K. M. C. M., and Chan, A. Void fraction prediction in twophaseflow across a tube bundle. AICHE Journal 38, 4 (1992), 619–622.
[17] Duineveld, P. Bouncing and coalescence of bubble pairs rising at high reynoldsnumber in pure water or aqueous surfactant solutions. Applied Scientific Research 58(1998), 409439.
[18] Feenstra, P., Weaver, D., and Nakamura, T. Vortex shedding and fluidelasticinstability in a normal square tube array excited by two-phase cross-flow. Journal ofFluids and Structures 17, 6 (2003), 793 – 811.
[19] Feenstra, P. A. Modelling Two-Phase Flow-Excited Fluidelastic Instability in HeatExchanger Tube Arrays. PhD thesis, McMaster University, 2000.
[20] Feenstra, P.A., W. D., and Judd, R. An improved void fraction model for two-phase cross-flow in horizontal tube bundles. International Journal of Multiphase Flow26, 11 (2000), 1851 – 1873.
[21] Fu, X.Y., I. M. e. a. Two-group interfacial area transport in verticalairwater flow i:Mechanistic model. Nuclear Engineering and Design 219 (2002), 143168.
[22] Grace, H. Dispersion phenomena in high viscosity immiscible fluid systems and ap-plication of static mixers as dispersion devices in such systems. Chemical EngineeringCommunity 14 (1982), 225277.
[23] Hassan, M., and Hayder, M. Modelling of fluidelastic vibrations of heat exchangertubes with loose supports. Nuclear Engineering and Design 238, 10 (2008), 2507 – 2520.
[24] Hassan, M., and Hossen, A. Time domain models for damping-controlled fluidelas-tic instability forces in tubes with loose supports. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology132 (2010).
124
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
[25] Hassan, M., and Weaver, D. The effect of flat bar supports on streamwise flu-idelastic instability in heat exchanger tube arrays. J. Press. Vess Tech 137 (2015),1–7.
[26] Hassan, M., and Weaver, D. Modeling of streamwise and transverse fluidelasticinstability in tube arrays. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 137 (2016).
[27] Hassan, M., and Weaver, D. Modeling of streamwise and transverse fluidelasticinstability in tube arrays. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 138 (2016).
[28] Hassan, M., and Weaver, D. Transverse and streamwise fluidelastic instabilityin rotated square tube arrays. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposiumon Fluid-Structure Interactions, Flow-Sound Interactions, Flow-Induced Vibration andNoise (2018), July 8-11, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
[29] Hassan, M., M. A. Fluidelastic instability modeling of loosely supported multispanu-tubes in nuclear steam generators.
[30] Hewitt, G., and Roberts, D. Investigation of interfacial phenomena in annulartwo-phase flow by means of the axial view technique.
[31] Hibiki, T., Mao, K., and Ozaki, T. Development of void fraction-quality correlationfor two-phase flow in horizontal and vertical tube bundles. Progress in Nuclear Energy97 (2017), 38 – 52.
[32] Hirota, K. & Nakamura, T. . K. J. . M. M. . K. T., and Takamatsu, H. Dy-namics of an in-line tube array subjected to steam-water cross-flow. part iii: fluidelasticinstability tests and comparison with theory. J of Fluids and Struc. 16 (2002), 153–173.
[33] Inada, F. & Kawamura, K. . Y. A., and Yoneda, K. An experimental study onthe fluidelastic forces acting on a square tube bundle in two-phase cross-flow.
[34] Ishii, M., and Hibiki, T. Thermo-Fluid Dynamics of Two-Phase Flow. Springer,New York, NY, 2011.
[35] Ishii, M., and Zuber, N. Drag coefficient and relative velocity in bubble, droplet orparticulate flows. Journal of Fluid Engineering 25 (1979), 193–199.
[36] Ishii, M., and Zuber, N. Drag coefficient and relative velocity in bubbly, droplet orparticulate flows. AlChE Journal 25 (1979), 843–854.
[37] Khalifa, A. Fluidelastic instability in heat exchanger tube array. PhD thesis, McMas-ter University, 2011.
[38] Khalifa, A., W. D., and Ziada, S. Modeling of the phase lag causing fluidelasticinstability in a parallel triangular tube array. Journal of Fluids and Structures 43 (2013),371 – 384.
125
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
[39] Kirkpatrick, R. D., and Lockett, M. J. The influence of approach velocity onbubble coalescence. Chemical Engineering Science 29 (1974), 2363–2373.
[40] Kolev, N. I. Fragmentation and coalescence dynamics in mulitiphase flows. Experi-mental Thermal and Fluid Science 6 (1993), 211251.
[41] Lever, J., and Weaver, D. On the stability of heat exchanger tube bundles, partI: Modified theoretical model. Journal of Sound and Vibration 107, 3 (1986), 375392.
[42] Lever, J., and Weaver, D. On the stability of heat exchanger tube bundles, part II:Numerical results and comparison with experiments. Journal of Sound and Vibration107, 3 (1986), 393410.
[43] Lever, J. H., and Weaver, D. S. A theoretical model for fluidelastic instabilityin heat exchanger tube bundles. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 104 (1982),147–158.
[44] Li, H. Development of a time delay formulation for fluidelastic instability model. PhDthesis, Universite de Montreal, 2016.
[45] Liao Y., L. D. A literature review of theoretical models for drop and bubble breakupin turbulent dispersions. Chemical Engineering Science 64 (2009), 3389–3406.
[46] Liu, B., Cheng, R., Zhang, Y., Chen, X., and Xu, Z. Experimental researchon fluid-elastic instability in tube bundles subjected to air-water cross flow. NuclearScience and Engineering 189, 3 (2018), 290–300.
[47] Magnaudet, J., and Legendre, D. Some aspects of the lift force on a sphericalbubble. Applied Scientific Researchl 58 (1998), 441461.
[48] Mao, K., and Hibiki, T. Drift-flux model for upward two-phase cross-flow in hori-zontal tube bundles. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 91 (2017), 170 – 183.
[49] Marrucci, G. A theory of coalescence. Chemical Engineering Science 24 (1968),975–985.
[50] Moran, J. Damping and Fluidelastic Instability in Two-Phase Cross-Flow Heat Ex-changer Tube Array. PhD thesis, McMaster University, 2007.
[51] Nai-bin, J., B. C. F.-g. Z. Y.-x. Z. An unsteady model for fluidelastic instabilityin an array of flexible tubes in two-phase cross-flow. Nuclear Engineering and Design285 (2015), 58–64.
[52] Noghrehkar, G., Kawaji, M., and Chan, A. Investigation of two-phase flowregimes in tube bundles under cross-flow conditions. International Journal of MultiphaseFlow 25, 5 (1999), 857 – 874.
126
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
[53] Olala, S., M. N. W. Streamwise dynamics of a tube array subjected to two-phasecross-flows. In Fluid-Structure Interaction (2015), vol. 4, ASME Pressure Vessels andPiping Conference.
[54] Ozakia, T., Suzukia, R., Mashikoa, H., and Hibikib, T. Development of drift-flux model based on 8 x 8 bwr rod bundle geometry experiments under prototypictemperature and pressure conditions. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 50(2013), 563580.
[55] Paıdoussis, M. A review of flow-induced vibrations in reactors and reactor compo-nents. Nuclear Engineering and Design 74, 1 (1983), 31 – 60.
[56] Paıdoussis, M. P., P. S. J., and De Langre, E. Fluid Structure Interactions:Cross Flow Induced Instabilities. Cambridge University Press, USA, 2011.
[57] Pettigrew, M. J., and Taylor, C. E. Two phase flow induced vibration: Anoverview. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 116 (1994), 233–253.
[58] Pettigrew, M. J., and Taylor, C. E. Vibration analysis of shell-and-tube heatexchangers: an overview part two. Journal of Fluids and Structures 18 (2003), 485–500.
[59] Pettigrew, M. J., and Taylor, C. E. Vibration analysis of shell-and-tube heatexchangers: an overviewpart 1: flow, damping, fluidelastic instability. Journal of Fluidsand Structures 18 (2003), 469–483.
[60] Pettigrew, M. J., and Taylor, C. E. Damping of heat exchanger tubes in twophase flow: Review and design guideline. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 126(2004), 523–533.
[61] Pettigrew, M. J., T. C. E., and Kim, B. S. Vibration of tube bundles in two-phase cross-flow. part i: Hydrodynamic mass and damping. Journal of Pressure VesselTecnology 111 (1989), 466–477.
[62] Pettigrew, M. J., T. C. E., and Kim, B. S. Vibration of tube bundles in two-phase cross-flow. part ii: Fluidelastic instability. Journal of Pressure Vessel Tecnology111 (1989), 478–487.
[63] Price, S. J. A review of theoretical models for fluidelastic instability of cylinder arraysin cross flow. Journal of Fluids and Structures 9 (1995), 463–518.
[64] Price, S. J., and Paıdoussis, M. Fluidelastic instability of a full array of flex-ible cylinders subject to cross-flow. In Fluid-Structure Interaction and AerodynamicDamping 108 (1985), 171–192.
[65] Price, S. J., and Paıdoussis, M. A constrained-mode analysis of the fluidelasticinstability of a double row of circular cylinders subject to cross-flow. Journal of FluidEngineering 108 (1986), 193–199.
127
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
[66] Price, S. J., and Paıdoussis, M. P. An improved mathematical model for thestability of cylinder rows subject to cross-flow. Journal of Sound and Vibration 97(1984), 615–640.
[67] Rastello, M., M. J. L. M. Drag and lift forces on clean spherical and ellipsoidalbubbles in a solid-body rotating flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 682 (2011), 434–459.
[68] Richard, D., C. C., and Qur, D. Contact time of a bouncing drop. Nature 417(2012), 811.
[69] Roberts, B. W. Low frequency, self excited vibration in a row of circular cylindersmounted in an air stream. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1962.
[70] Roberts, B. W. Low frequency, aeroelastic vibrations in a cascade of circular cylin-ders. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 4 (1966).
[71] Rogers, R.J., T. C. P. M. Fluid effects on multi-span heat-exchanger tube vibration.ASME Publication, Topics in Fluid Structure Interaction, San Antonio,USA (1984), 17–26.
[72] Sadek, O., M. A., and Hassan, M. Numerical investigation of the cross flowfluidelastic forces of two-phase flow in tube bundle. Journal of Fluids and Structures 79(2018), 171 – 186.
[73] Sakamoto, H., and Haniu, H. A study of vortex shedding from a sphere in auniform flow. Journal of Fluids Engineering 112 (1990), 386–392.
[74] Sawadogo, T., and Mureithi, N. Fluidelastic instability study in a rotated trian-gular tube array subject to two-phase cross-flow. part i: Fluid force measurements andtime delay extraction. Journal of Fluids and Structures 49 (2014), 1 – 15.
[75] Senez, H., and Etienne, S. Development of a numerical model to represent two-phase flow configurations in a tube bundle. Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Con-ference 38 (2011).
[76] Shahriary, S., M. N., and Pettigrew, M. Quasi-static forces and stability analysisin a triangular tube bundle subjected to two-phase cross-flow. In PVP Conference, 4:Fluid-Structure Interaction (2007), American Society Mechanical Engineers; New York,NY, pp. 245–252.
[77] Tan, T., G. L. L. P.-M. J., and Jiang, T. Experimental study on fluidelastic insta-bility of rotated triangular tube bundles subjected to two-phase cross flow. In Proceed-ings of the 9th International Symposium on Fluid-Structure Interactions, Flow-SoundInteractions, Flow-Induced Vibration and Noise (2018), July 8-11, Toronto, Ontario,Canada.
128
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
[78] Tanaka, H., T. S. Unsteady fluid dynamic force on tube bundle and its dynamiceffect on vibration. in flow-induced vibration of power plant components. In GeneralStudies of Nuclear Reactors (E2200) (1980), American Society Mechanical Engineers;New York, NY, pp. 77–92.
[79] Thulukkanam, K. Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, second edition ed. CRC Press,2013.
[80] Ulbrich, R., and Mewes, D. Vertical, upward gas-liquid two-phase flow across atube bundle. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 20, 2 (1994), 249 – 272.
[81] Wallis, G. B. One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow. McGraw-Hill, New York., 1968.
[82] Weaver, D., and Fitzpatrick, J. A review of cross-flow induced vibrations in heatexchanger tube arrays. Journal of Fluids and Structures 2, 1 (1988), 73 – 93.
[83] Yan, K., and Che, D. A coupled model for simulation of the gas-liquid two-phaseflow with complex flow patterns. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 36 (2010),333–348.
[84] Yetisir, M., and Weaver, D. An unsteady theory for fluidelastic instability in anarray of flexible tubes in cross-flow. part i: Theory. Journal of Fluids and Structures 7,7 (1993), 751 – 766.
[85] Zuber, N., and Findlay, J. A. Average volumetric concentration in two-phase flowsystems. Journal of Heat Transfer 87 (1965), 453 – 468.
129
Appendix A
Dimensional Analysis of Rayliegh
Plesset equation
Pv(T∞)− P∞(t)
ρL+Pv(TB)− Pv(T∞)
ρL+ PGo
(TBT∞
)(Ro
R
)3k
= RdR2
dt2+
3
2
(dR
dt
)2
+4νLR
dR
dt+
2σ
ρLR(A.1)
Equation (3.45) is a second order highly nonlinear differential equation which is difficult
to solve, specially that the fluid pressure P∞ is not defined as a continuous function. First
attempt to solve the equation was to apply dimensional analysis to ignore the insignificant
terms.
Assume dimensionless parameters
R∗ =R
Ro
(A.2)
(A.3)
t∗ =tURRo
(A.4)
(A.5)
P ∗x =Px
12ρLU2
R
(A.6)
And
130
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
dR
dt=R
t=
R∗Ro
t ∗Ro/UR=R∗URt∗
(A.7)
(A.8)
d2R
dt2=R
t2=R∗URt∗
URt∗Ro
=U2RR∗
t∗2Ro
(A.9)
(A.10)
By substituting in equation A.1
1
2U2R[P ∗v (T∞)−P ∗∞(t)] +
1
2U2RP∗Go
(1
R∗
)3k
= R∗RoU2RR∗
t∗2Ro
+3
2
(R∗URt∗
)2
+4νL
R∗UR
t∗
R∗Ro
+2σ
ρLR∗Ro
(A.11)
By dividing the whole equation by 12U2R and rearranging
P ∗v (T∞)− P ∗∞(t) + P ∗Go
(1
R∗
)3k
= 2
(R∗
t∗
)2
+ 3
(R∗
t∗
)2
+νL
URRo
8
t∗+
σ
2ρLU2RRo
8
R∗(A.12)
Substituting Reynold’s number Re = URRo
νLand Webber number We =
2ρLU2RRo
σ,
P ∗v (T∞)− P ∗∞(t) + P ∗Go
(1
R∗
)3k
= 2
(R∗
t∗
)2
+ 3
(R∗
t∗
)2
+1
Re
8
t∗+
1
We
8
R∗(A.13)
To evaluate each term in the right hand side of equation A.13, let’s assume that the bubble
relative velocity UR is in order of [1] m/s and the bubble radius Ro is in order of [10−3] m
and the time step t is in order of [10−4]s−1. By using the air-water mixture properties, the
normalized time t∗ could be found to be in order of [10−1], Reynold’s number in order of
[103] and Webber number We in order of [103].
The evaluation of the normalized radius term is not easy. The radius will change expo-
nentially with the change of the pressure P∞. However, for the normal conditions, the new
bubble radius, R will range between one tenth to ten times the original radius Ro which
gives R∗ to be in order of [10−1 − 10].
By applying dimensional analysis, Rayleigh-Plesset equation was decreased to equation
131
University of Guelph PhD Thesis - Y. Selima
(3.43),
Pv(T∞)− P∞(t)
ρL+PGoρL
(Ro
R
)3k
= RR +3
2(R)2 +
2σ
ρLR(A.14)
And isothermal expansion of the gas will was assumed. This assumption is set due to
the difficulty of considering the change in gas temperature while ignoring the heat transfer
and the bubbles generation across the tube bundle.
By taking this assumption into account, and by substituting by PGo from (3.42), get
1
ρL
[P∞(0)+
2σ
Ro
](Ro
R
)3
−P∞(t)
ρL+
1
ρL
[Pv(T∞)
(1+
(Ro
R
)3)]= RR+
3
2(R)2+
2σ
ρLR(A.15)
132