International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

A combined CFD/visualization investigation of heat transfer behaviors

during geyser boiling in two-phase closed thermosyphon
Xiaoyuan Wang, Yinfeng Wang, Haijun Chen, Yuezhao Zhu ⇑
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Process Enhancement and New Energy Equipment Technology, School of Mechanical and Power Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, No. 30 Pu Zhu
South Road, Nanjing 211816, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In order to promote the understanding of geyser boiling in two-phase closed thermosyphon, a combined
Received 5 November 2017 CFD/visualization investigation was carried out in this work. The widely used phase change model, i.e.,
Received in revised form 2 January 2018 Lee model, is improved by introducing the consideration of superheat to increase its prediction perfor-
Accepted 3 January 2018
mance. CFD modellings of heat transfer behaviors during geyser boiling were performed using both
the improved and original Lee model based on VOF method. These results were analyzed and compared
to the visualized observations from experimental tests. The experimental results show that a periodic
Keywords:
geyser boiling with the cycle time at 80–100 s occurs under the conditions that the flow rate of heating
CFD
Phase change
water is controlled at 400 mL/min (95 °C) and cooling water at 300 mL/min (30 °C). The corresponding
Thermosyphon modelling results in accordance with these experimental conditions suggest that the improved Lee model
VOF has a better prediction performance. The rapid slug bubble growth in expulsion period, and the surface
Geyser boiling evaporation and thermally natural convection in liquid pool during the incubation period are in good
agreement with the experimental observations. In addition, the temperature and velocity contours dur-
ing geyser boiling are comprehensively revealed by use of the improved Lee model.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction characteristics and the relatively high computational efficiency and

CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) modelling technique has
got rapid development in the past decades, supplying a convenient
and universal method to predict the complex behaviors in flow and
heat transfer problems. The main advantages of this technique
compared to empirical correlations and theoretical models lie in
its ability of providing detailed spatial and temporal parameters
in computational domain, and the broader range of scales and geo-
metrical structures. CFD technique has shown splendid accuracy
and effectiveness in single-phase flows. However, the simulation
of two-phase flows, in particular these associated with phase
change problems, remain hitherto a challenge to CFD technique
concerning the accuracy and computational cost, due to the com-
plexity in capturing movement of interfaces and prediction of cor-
responding interfacial mass, momentum, and energy transfer [1,2].
For the purpose of interface-tracking in immiscible phases, var-
ious numerical methods have been developed by far. The common
methods include the volume-of-fluid (VOF) method [3,4], level set
(LS) method [5,6], front-tracking method(FT) [7], and the hybrid
VOF/LS method [1,2,8]. However, due to the inherent conservative
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wangxy_njtu@163.com (X. Wang), zyz@njtech.edu.cn (Y. Zhu).
convenience, VOF method has become the most popular method
for two-phase flows modelling, particularly those problems associ-
ated with condensation and boiling, in spite of the slightly inferior
accuracy of interface curvature [9–13]. De Schepper et al. [11]
numerically investigated the evolvement of boiling flow of hydro-
carbon feedstock in horizontal tubes in a steam cracker using VOF
method, and the simulation results were in agreement with the
flow regimes in literatures. Yang et al. [10] also employed the
VOF method for investigating the boiling flow of R141b in a hori-
zontal coiled tube, and visualization experiments were performed
to validate the numerical predictions. These work demonstrate the
potential of VOF method for the study of phase change heat trans-
fer process.
Phase change simulation with CFD technique is achieved by
modifying the source terms in governing equations associated with
the interfacial mass, momentum, and energy transfer. As the
energy transfer rate across interfaces can be calculated through
multiplying the mass transfer rate and latent heat of vaporization,
and likewise the momentum transfer is usually neglected for sim-
plification, only the mass transfer rate is given in phase change
model.
There are three commonly used phase change models in CFD
modellings, including the Rankine-Hugoniot jump condition,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.01.005
0017-9310/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
704 X. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714

Nomenclature

Aint interfacial area, m2 b empirical coefficients in Lee model, s1

cp heat capacity of liquid, J/(kgK) c accommodation coefficient
E specific internal energy/relative error (%) d thermal boundary layer thickness, m
F force, N l dynamic viscosity, Pas
g gravitational acceleration, m/s2 q density, kg/m3
hlv latent heat, J/kg r surface tension, N/m
k thermal conductivity, W/(mK)
m_ mass transfer rate, kg/(m2s) Subscripts
M molecular weight, kg/mol a adiabatic section
n unit vector normal to interface b bulk liquid
p pressure, Pa c condenser section
Q heat transfer power, W ci cooling water inlet
q heat flux, W/cm2 co cooling water outlet
R universal gas constant, 8.314 J/(molK) e evaporator section
S source term in governing equations hi heating water inlet
T temperature, K/°C ho heating water outlet
DTi incipient boiling superheat on heating surface, K l liquid phase
u velocity, m/s sat saturation state
v volume flow, mL/min unsat unsaturation state
V cell volume, m3 v vapor phase
w wall
Greek letters
a void fraction

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi" #
Schrage model, and Lee model [14]. Mass transfer rate in Rankine- 2c M qv hlv ðT  T sat Þ
Hugoniot jump condition is based on the energy transfer across
_ ¼
m ; ð5Þ
2c 2pR 3=2
T sat
interfaces due to conduction, given as
The volumetric mass source terms for both Eqs. (4) and (5) are
n  ðkl rT l  kv rT v Þ
_ ¼
m ; ð1Þ determined by
h lv
_ rav j;
Sv ¼ Sl ¼ mj ð6Þ
_ kg/(m2s), denotes the mass transfer rate. As mass transfer
where m,
of phase change is introduced in the mass conservation equation by where jrav j for a particular cell of computational domain is
source term, where the mass flux is expressed in kg/(m3s), Eq. (1) obtained from
should be converted to volumetric mass source term S in CFD tech-
nique. Two derivative versions are thus proposed respectively by Aint
jrav j ¼ ; ð7Þ
Nichita et al. [15] and Sun et al. [16], V

k  ðrT  ral Þ where Aint is the interfacial area in the cell and V the cell volume.
Sv ¼ Sl ¼ ; ð2Þ Schrage model and its deductive version have been employed in
hlv
some CFD works on condensation and boiling flows. The main chal-
2kunsat  ðrT  raunsat Þ lenge for these models is the determination of accommodation
Ssat ¼ Sunsat ¼ ; ð3Þ coefficient, c, from 0.01 to 1 varying in different applications. Fur-
h lv
thermore, the use of jrav j also limit their application in the prob-
These models have been used for modelling of flow boiling and film lems that interfaces between phases are preexisting, like falling
boiling. However, as the existing of term, ra, which is non-zero film evaporation, film boiling, etc.
only at the interfaces, these models can only address the problems In order to widen the application range of Schrage model, Lee
with preexisting interfaces, and therefore its application range is [18] developed a more simplified phase change model based on
limited. In addition, the phase change models based on Rankine- this model assuming phase change occurs at constant pressure
Hugoniot jump condition don’t account for the mass transfer due and quasi-thermo-equilibrium, as shown below,
to kinetic energy.
Another kind of phase models, firstly proposed by Schrage in T  T sat
Sv ¼ Sl ¼ be ql al for evaporation process ðT > T sat Þ; ð8Þ
1950s, are deduced from kinetic gas theory [14]. Mass transfer rate T sat
crossing the interfaces is related to the temperature and pressure
of the phases based on Hertz-Knudsen equation. The original T sat  T
Sl ¼ Sv ¼ bc qv av for condensation processðT  T sat Þ; ð9Þ
expression form of Schrage model is T sat
Due to it allows phase change to generate both along the inter-
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi" #
2 M Pv Pl faces and within the saturated phase, as well as its easy implement
_ ¼
m c pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  ce pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ð4Þ
2  cc 2pR c T v ;sat T l;sat to Fluent through UDF (User-Defined-Function), Lee model is now
the most popular phase change model over a wide range of appli-
Tanasawa [17] further simplified the Schrage model assuming cations [9–13,19,20], especially the applications where both con-
the mass flux is linearly dependent on temperature jump between densation and evaporation exist, e.g., the two-phase closed
the interfaces and vapor phase. It is given as the following form thermosyhpon.
 X. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714 705

A two-phase closed thermosyphon, or referred to as ther- In practical working conditions, particularly in the cases of water
mosyphon, is a kind of highly efficient heat transfer device, by boiling at sub-atmospheric pressure, flow boiling in organic refrig-
which the heat is transported by gravity-driven phase change cir- erants, and liquid metals, the incipient boiling superheat is consid-
culation of the working fluid in a sealed container, typically with a erably large. Neglecting the superheat in phase change model in
tubular shape. As the advantages of simple structure and reliability these applications is apparently difficult to reproduce the transient
compared to wicked heat pipes, driven by capillary forces, ther- heat transfer behaviors.
mosyphons have been widely used in industrial applications, The phase change model proposed here is improved from Lee
applied energy and temperature management [21]. model by adding the consideration of superheat needed for nucle-
Lee model is the main phase change model used for ther- ation. The mass transfer rate expressions are given in Eqs.(10)–
mosyphon simulation recently. Alizadehdakhel et al. [20] made (12). And the energy transfer rate equals the product of mass trans-
the first attempt via VOF method to model the two-phase flow fer rate and latent heat.
including the phase change in a thermosyphon, and the effect of T  Tsat + DTi
condensing film and vapor layer on the heat transfer performance
T  T sat
were analyzed at steady state. Fadhl et al. [9,12] also developed a Sv ¼ Sl ¼ be ql al ; evaporation ð10Þ
T sat
CFD model to simulate the details of flow and heat transfer in ther-
mosyphons. They focused on the temperature profile and start-up Tsat < T < Tsat + DTi
behavior in thermosyphons with different working fluids, includ- (
be ql al TT sat
; al – 1; evaporation
ing water, R134a, and R404a. In addition, Asmaie et al. [22] per- Sv ¼ Sl ¼ T sat

formed a numerical simulation for the comparison and analysis

0; al ¼ 1; neither evaporation nor condensation
of thermal performance among the thermosyphons adopting de- ð11Þ
ionized water or CuO/Water nanofluid as working fluid. Zhi et al. T  Tsat
[23] proposed a method to balance the condensation and evapora-
tion in thermosyphon at the steady state by automatically adjust- T sat  T
Sl ¼ Sv ¼ bc qv av ; condensation ð12Þ
ing the empirical coefficients be and bc in Lee model. Furthermore, T sat
Yinfeng et al. carried out a combined CFD/visualized investigation This model is also schematically illustrated in Fig. 1. The
on heat transfer behaviors of a loop thermosyphon used for solar location of vapor formation (evaporation), within liquid or at
thermal utilization, which is also based on Lee model. interfaces, is distinguished via liquid volume fraction al.
It can be seen that almost all of these CFD works with respect to Evaporation occurs in any cell within liquid as long as it’s
thermosyphons mentioned above mainly focus on the steady state overheated (T  Tsat + DTi), or at the liquid–vapor interfaces (al –
of heat transfer, and that these works were all carried out using the 1, the bubble walls and pool surface) once local temperature rises
original Lee model, in which the superheat needed for activating to saturation temperature (T > Tsat). And condensation takes place
nucleate sites at heating wall is not considered. This may be the anywhere temperature decreases below saturation temperature
main reason that the modelling results of transient heat transfer (T  Tsat), commonly at the cooling wall or droplet surface.
behaviors of two-phase flow in thermosyphons appear to don’t Due to the simulation work here targets boiling on solid
match the practical phenomenon quite well. surfaces of water, the employed empirical equation for incipient
The superheat is significantly essential to the bubble growth boiling superheat DTi was proposed by Hsu [24] with rigorous
behaviors in a thermosyphon. In this work, Lee model is improved analysis.
by adding the consideration of superheat for triggering bubble for-
mation, with the target of making it more accurately to reproduce
the heat transfer behaviors in thermosyphon. CFD models of a ther-
mosyphon using this improved and original Lee model are devel-
oped based on VOF method, respectively, to perform the
simulation of bubble growth behaviors during geyser boiling in
thermosyphon. For the purpose of validation of the improved Lee
model, visualization experiments with an all-glass thermosyphon
are carefully designed and carried out. In addition, the simulation
results of boiling regime using both phase change models are com-
pared to highlight the improved prediction performance of the
improved model. The heat transfer behaviors are also analyzed,
providing a deep insight into the details of geyser boiling in ther-
mosyphons to promote its understanding.

2. Phase change model with consideration of superheat

The formation of vapor at an interface, also referred to as evap-

oration, occurs when liquid temperature fractionally above the
corresponding saturation temperature. These interfaces include
the liquid pool surface, liquid film, bubble wall, and vapor core in
annular flow, etc. On the other hand, vapor condenses immediately
when the vapor temperature slightly below the saturation
temperature.
However, the vapor formation from heating surface within liq-
uid, known as nucleation, needs a superheat to activate, depending
on many factors involving, but not limited to, thermophysical
parameters of liquid, pressure, heating methods, and surface finish. Fig. 1. Schematic view of the improved phase change model.
706 X. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714
3:06rlv T w
DT i ¼
qv hlv d
3. Experimental apparatus and procedures
A typical thermosyphon is fabricated by evacuating the air in
the tubular container, followed by filling a certain amount of work-
ing fluid and seal. A thermosyphon can be functionally divided into
three parts: an evaporator in lower part, a condenser section in the
upper, and the adiabatic section between them. In normal opera-
tion of a thermosyphon, heat is absorbed from heat source via boil-
ing of working fluid in the evaporator, and then the vapor phase
streams upward through the adiabatic section to the condenser
where it condenses and releases its latent heat. Subsequently, the
condensate flows back to evaporator absorbing heat again, and
heat is continuously transferred from heat source to heat sink
without any external power.
An all-glass thermosyphon was fabricated to carry out visu-
alization experiments with the target to validate the improved
phase change model described above. This all-glass ther-
mosyphon is 500 mm in total length, Ø18  1.5 mm in diame-
ter, with the evaporator, adiabatic section, and condenser
length of 160 mm, 100 mm, and 180 mm, respectively. A glass
vacuum valve is welded at the top for evacuating air and filling
working fluid.
The experimental setup for visualization and heat transfer tests
of the all-glass thermosyphon is shown in Fig. 2, mainly consisting
of the water heating and cooling system, temperature monitoring
and acquisition system, thermal insulation rig, and a high speed
camera. Flow rates of circulating water are controlled by the mem-
brane pumps and flowmeters, with the relative error of ±1.0% cal-
ibrated by a high precision graduated cylinder. The double-layer
glass vacuum jacket is employed at both the evaporator and con-
denser for heating and cooling respectively, allowing a decent visu-
alization insight to the heat transfer behaviors and, at the same
time, reduce heat loss to ambient. Moreover, the adiabatic section
and top end of the thermosyphon are also well insulated by foam
insulation layers. Rubber plugs are used to seal these jackets mak-
ing it possible to arrange thermocouples along the thermosyphon
through the holes in these rubber plugs.
In order to record the temperature variations along the ther-
mosyphon, 8 T-type thermocouples (±0.1 °C) are attached on its
outer surface by a special adhesive (D-3, Salton, Taiwan), denoted
as Te1-Te4 at evaporator, Ta1-Ta2 at adiabatic section, and Tc1-Tc4 at
condenser. In addition, the temperature of water flow at inlet
and outlet of these jackets are also monitored by T-type thermo-
couples, indicated as Tci, Tco, Thi and Tho separately, as shown in
Fig. 2. The temperature data is recorded by a data logger (Agilent
34970A, ±0.004%) connected to PC at a frequency of 1 Hz. The ther-
mocouples, labeled Tci, Tco, Thi and Tho, are calibrated via a water
thermostatic bath by binding their probes together, ensuring the
difference between each other not large than 0.1 K throughout
the measuring ranges. During the tests, the flow rates and temper-
ature of heating and cooling water are controlled constant. The
heat transfer behaviors of bubble growth in evaporator is captured
by a high speed camera (i-SPEED 3, OLYMPUS) with the monitoring
frame of 3000 Hz (its maximum frequency reaches up to 150,000
Hz).
4. Data reduction and uncertainty analysis
The heat exchange amount at evaporator Qe and condenser Qc of
this thermosyphon can be calculated respectively based on the
average temperature difference of cooling and heating water,
recorded spanning 5 min at steady state.
Q c ¼ cp qwater v cooling ðT co  T ci Þ ð14Þ
ð13Þ
Q e ¼ cp qwater v heating ðT hi  T ho Þ ð15Þ
However, because of the influence of ambient air (indoor tem-
perature is controlled at 25 °C), when the heating water is not cir-
culated, namely no heat transfer through the thermosyphon, the
average temperature drop of cooling water (the thermostatic bath
is set as 30 °C) is around 0.15 °C, and so the practical heat transfer
power Qpratical is
Q practical ¼ cp qwater v cooling ðT co  T ci  0:15Þ ð16Þ
Then the total heat loss Qloss to ambient at evaporator and adi-
abatic section is
Q loss ¼ Q e  Q practical ð17Þ
The heat transfer coefficient at surface of evaporator he and con-
denser hc are obtained by
Q practical
h¼ ð18Þ
AjT water  T wall j
The relative error of practical heat transfer power E(Qpratical) and
heat transfer coefficient E(h)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Cpq v 2cooling d ðDT coci Þ þ DT 2coci d v cooling
2 2
EðQ practical Þ ¼
Cpqv cooling DT coci
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u 2
ud ðDT coci Þ d2 v cooling
¼t þ 2 ð19Þ
DT 2coci v cooling
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Q 2pratical d ðDT waterwall Þ þ DT 2waterwall d Q pratical
1 2 2
ADT
EðhÞ ¼ Q pratical
ADT waterwall
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u 2
ud ðDT waterwall Þ d2 Q practical
¼t þ ð20Þ
DT 2 waterwall Q2 practical
where d(DTco-ci) and dvcooling represents the maximum absolute
error of Tco-Tci and vcooling. According to the test results, the average
temperature difference between the cooling/heating water and con-
denser/evaporator wall DT waterwall is approximately 10 °C at various
conditions, and thus it is assumed constant for the relative error
evaluation. The dependence of practical heat transfer power on rel-
ative error of Qpractical and h is given in Fig. 3. It can be seen that both
E(Qpractical) and E(h) are less than 5% if the heat transfer power
beyond 40 W.
Under the experimental conditions that flow rate of heating
water is controlled at 400 mL/min (95 °C), and cooling water at
around 300 mL/min (30 °C), the practical heat transfer power of
this thermosyphon at steady state lies in the range of 50–90 W
depending on the filling ratio of water, and the heat loss Qloss
account for 5–20% of Qpractical.
5. Mathematical model description
5.1. Governing equations for VOF method
Modelling of phase change in this work is tackled by VOF
method [3], assuming: (1) the saturation temperature and pressure
are constant, as well as the density, conductivity, and specific heat
of vapor and liquid, namely the fluid flow is incompressible, (2) the
shear stress at vapor–liquid interfaces is negligible, (3) vapor and
liquid flow is considered to be laminar. The interface tracking is
performed by geometric reconstruction using piecewise-linear
schemes. It assumes that the interface between two fluids has a
 X. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714 707

Fig. 2. Experimental setup for the all-glass thermosyphon.

linear slope within each cell, and this linear shape is used for cal-
culation of the advection of fluid through the cell faces. In addition,
this problem is also simplified to two-dimensional considering the
calculation efficiency and precision.
As the phase change problems investigated in this work merely
involve vapor and liquid phases, the volume fractions of them in a
cell sum to unity (al+av = 1). Accordingly, only the continuity equa-
tion of primary phase (liquid phase) needs to be calculated. Both
the momentum equation and energy equation are calculated for
mixture phase, and velocity and temperature are shared by two
phases. Governing equations are listed as follow.
Continuity equation (or referred to as volume fraction equation)
@
ðal ql Þ þ r  ðal ql uÞ ¼ Sl ð21Þ
@t
Fig. 3. Relative error of practical heat transfer power E(Qpractical) and heat transfer Momentum equation
coefficient E(h).
708 X. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714
@   ANSYS Fluent 16.0 was employed here to carry out the simula-
ðquÞ þ r  ðquuÞ ¼ rp þ r  lðru þ ruT Þ þ qg
@t
þ SCSF
Energy equation
@ volume fraction equation) was discretized using explicit formula-
ðqEÞ þ r  ½ðqE þ pÞu ¼ rðkrTÞ þ SE
@t
The material properties of mixture phase, density q, thermal
conductivity k, and viscosity l in momentum equation and energy
equation are volume-averaged, but the internal energy E is mass-
averaged.
q ¼ al ql þ ð1  av Þqv
k ¼ al kl þ ð1  av Þkv
l ¼ al ll þ ð1  av Þlv
al ql El þ av qv Ev
E¼
al ql þ av qv
Surface tension is resulted from the imbalance molecular
attractions at liquid–vapor interfaces, exhibiting as inward forces
that can make the surfaces of bubble or droplet tend to minimum.
Surface tension effect is significant for bubble evolution and wet-
ting characteristics of liquid to solid surface. Continuum surface
force (CSF) model [25] is employed here to consider the effect of
surface tension by adding a source term SCSF in the monument
equation.
al ql C v rav þ av qv C l ral
SCSF ¼ 2rlv
ql þ qv
5.2. Modelling geometry and solution strategy
A full scale 2D geometry of the all-glass thermosyphon coupling
fluid region and solid walls was built using DesignModeler, and its
dimensions and boundary conditions are illustrated in Fig. 4. Ther-
mal convection boundary condition was imposed at the evaporator
and condenser wall where the free stream temperature and heat
transfer coefficient were given in accordance with experimental
data, and the heat flux on adiabatic section was set as 0.
Fig. 4. Geometry and boundary conditions of the all-glass thermosyphon.
tion of this thermosyphon. The numerical calculations were per-
ð22Þ formed based on SIMPLE scheme for pressure–velocity coupling,
and second order upwind scheme was used for the discretization
of momentum and energy equations. The continuity equation (or
ð23Þ tion, and the interface tracking was accomplished by geometric
reconstruction scheme. Due to the target modelling objective is
the geyser boiling, the temperature and pressure of computation
domain are initialized as that of the saturation state in experimen-
tal test of geyser boiling, and thermal properties of water liquid
and vapor were also set according to the saturation temperature
ð24Þ (the average temperature of adiabatic section during geyser boil-
ing). Moreover, time step size was specified as 104 s, and the cal-
ð25Þ culations of every step was considered converged when the
residuals of variables reduced by four orders of magnitude. For
ð26Þ the transient simulation, use is made of a DELL modular server
(R820) with quad core (E5-4620), 256G RAM, and the Windows
Server 2012 operation system.
ð27Þ
5.3. Mesh independence test
In order to make sure the simulation results are independent of
mesh structure, mesh independence test is carried out in terms of
the steady heat transfer performance. The geometry is meshed by
ANSYS Meshing using quadrilateral structured mesh, and the 5
mesh structures employed in test are illustrated in Fig. 5(a) each
with an inflation layer located at the fluid side of interface. The
simulation conditions are set in accordance with the experiments
under the filling ratio (the ratio of water volume to evaporator vol-
ð28Þ ume) of this thermosyphon at 75%, i.e., the filling height is 12 cm.
The predicted heat transfer power at semi-steady state are
obtained when the heat transfer balance is reached between the
condenser and evaporator in simulation. Fig. 5(b) shows the ten-
dency of predicted Qpractical varying with mesh number, implying
that the mesh number would have an insignificant influence on
the predicted results provided it’s larger than 40,000. It is thus
the fourth mesh structure shown in Fig. 5(a) is selected in this
work.
6. Results and discussion
Geyser boiling is a common boiling phenomenon in ther-
mosyphons, typically under the conditions of low heat input and
high filling amount of working fluid. It is characterized as an inter-
mittent boiling cycle with three periods, including expulsion, refill-
ing, and incubation. In expulsion period, most of working fluid is
propelled by the rapidly expanding bubbles from the evaporator
to the adiabatic section or condenser with a significant velocity,
or described as a violent boiling phenomenon, which may last for
dozens of seconds. And then the liquid refills the evaporator and
liquid pool keeps quiescent for a while, namely incubation phase,
with no bubble generation before the next expulsion period [26].
Geyser boiling is a kind of undeveloped boiling that may make
thermosyphons vibrate and produce strange noise, even causing
damage to container walls in extreme cases.
Casarosa [27], Kuncoro [26], Lin [28], and Khazaee [29] et al.
experimentally investigated the geyser boiling in thermosyphons
with respect to the forming mechanism and influence factors. It
is concluded that the main reason for entailing this phenomenon
may be the insufficient heat input incapable of maintaining a con-
tinuous boiling. The effect of various parameters, such as heat
input, cooling temperature, saturation pressure, filling ratio, etc.,
on the frequency and amplitude of geyser boiling has been fully
revealed, and a criterion for the occurrence of the geyser boiling
 X. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714 709

Fig. 5. Mesh dependence test: (a) different mesh structures, (b) predicted Qpractical varying with mesh number.

has also been established by Lin [28]. Jouhara et al. [19] made an
attempt to modelling the geyser boiling in thermosyphons with
Lee model, and compared the simulation results with visualization
experiments. However, it seems that the considerably rapid bubble
growth phenomenon in evaporator section of the thermosyphon
was not well reproduced.
The geyser boiling within the all-glass thermosyphon (filling
ratio = 75%) in this work was obtained at the conditions that the
flow rate of heating water was controlled at 400 mL/min (95 °C),
and cooling water at around 300 mL/min (30 °C). The time varia-
tions of temperature along this thermosyphon during geyser boil-
ing are shown in Fig. 6. A periodic fluctuation of temperature can
be observed when geyser boiling occurs with a cycle time at 80–
100 s. According to the observations, the increase of temperature
at evaporator wall (Te1-Te4) is associated with the incubation per-
iod. As the pictures revealed in Fig. 7, surface evaporation, falling
droplets evaporation, and natural convection are the main heat
Fig. 6. Wall temperature variations along the thermosyphon during experimental
transfer forms in liquid pool in this period. And sometimes the test.
returning condensate droplets may cause perturbation at the pool
surface generating local temporary boiling. Due to the relatively
low heat transfer coefficients in evaporator chamber in the incuba- Once the wall superheat at evaporator section reaches a critical
tion period compared to boiling, the input heat can’t be trans- value that can activate the most active nucleation sites, the expul-
ported upward efficiently leading to accumulation of energy in sion period commences and the accumulated energy is released
the quiescent liquid pool. For this reason, and meanwhile due to immediately through drastic boiling with the decrease of temper-
the continuous cooling of water, the temperature at adiabatic sec- ature. Besides, a sharp increase of temperature occurs at condenser
tion (Ta1 and Ta2) and condenser (Tc1-Tc4) decrease gradually in this and adiabatic section, as seen in Fig. 6, caused by the flowing-up
period. hot liquid from evaporator. In the initial stage of expulsion period,
710 X. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714

Fig. 7. Time-dependent heat transfer behaviors of evaporator in incubation period in test.

only a single bubble emerged at the bottom of evaporator. The time
trends of the observation phenomenon of that bubble in test are
plotted in Fig. 8. At first, the bubble dramatically expanded to
the size of inner diameter of pipe, i.e., a slug bubble, propelling
the liquid column above it go upward rapidly. The liquid column
is then thrown to condenser section scouring the condensation
surface, which entails the sudden temperature variations along
the thermosyphon. Further, it can also be found from the lower
part of Fig. 8 that the bubble grows with a gathering velocity in
evaporator.
During expulsion period, bubbles generate continuously from
the thermosyphon bottom before the liquid returns back. Annular
flow boiling is observed as the main form of heat transfer in
evaporator of this thermosyphon in this period, as the captured
frames illustrated in Fig. 9. Under this experimental condition,
the expulsion period usually lasts for 50–80 s, and subsequently
the evaporator liquid pool will regain peace again, accumulating
energy for the next expulsion.
With the purpose of comparison, the geyser boiling is simu-
lated by the improved Lee model (considering the superheat
DTi) and the original one (without considering the superheat
DTi) separately based on VOF method. The detailed physical
parameters and boundary conditions are applied according to
the experimental test results, as listed in Table 1. It should be
emphasized that as the state of geyser boiling is far from steady
and therefore condensation coefficients bc and evaporation coef-
ficient be adopt the same value here. However, in the modelling
of semi-steady state for a thermosyphon, in order to balance the
heat input and output, the value of bc is generally about
10–1000 times that of be.

Fig. 8. Time trends of single bubble growth at the initial stage of expulsion period in test.
 X. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714 711

Fig. 9. Heat transfer behaviors in developed stage of expulsion period in test.

the improved Lee model, the bubble is first observed in the bottom
Table 1 corner region of evaporator, and this bubble grows very quickly to
Details of physical parameters and boundary conditions in CFD modelling. a long slug shape pushing the liquid flow upward. And during the
Item Unit Value liquid flowing-up, some other bubbles generate and swell in the
wake flow of this expanding bubble. It is obvious that the phe-
Thermal physical Saturation temperature Tsat K 318
parameters Saturation pressure Psat Pa 9590 nomenon described above is similar to that seen in the visualiza-
Incipient boiling superheat K 16.2 tion experiment. However, with the original Lee model, many
DT i nucleation sites are activated almost all over the inner surface of
Density of vapor/liquid qv/ql kg/m3 0.089/ liquid pool in evaporator, which is completely different from that
990.2
Thermal conductivity of W/ 0.0201/
in test. Further, these bubbles grow so slowly that the slug bubble
vapor/liquid kv/kl (mK) 0.631 and liquid flowing-up phenomenon are also not reproduced. It can
Specific heat of vapor/liquid J/ 1869.03/ be concluded that the addition of superheat to Lee model enhance
cp,v/cp,l (kgK) 4176.21 its prediction performance, at least in terms of the bubble growth
Thermal boundary Heat transfer coefficient at W/ 913.2 behaviors.
conditions evaporator wall (m2K) On the other hand, though the bubble expulsion phenomenon is
Free stream temperature at K 360.8
exactly reproduced, the bubble growth rate in simulation is differ-
evaporator wall
Heat transfer coefficient at W/ 682 ent from that in experimental test. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that it
condenser wall (m2K) takes about 90 ms for the slug bubble fills the whole evaporator in
Free stream temperature at K 302.4 experiment, and however the time needed in simulation is up to
condenser wall about 500 ms, as shown in Fig. 10. The discrepancy is resulted from
2
Heat flux at adiabatic section W/m 0
the fact that the bubble grows with an accelerating velocity in
practice, but evaporation coefficient be, controlling the evaporation
rate, retains invariable throughout the simulation process.
The modelling results of the bubble growth behaviors for both
The distribution of temperature and velocity vectors at the
phase change models at the initial stage of boiling are plotted in
evaporator bottom just after the bubble generation for both phase
Fig. 10, the red color representing vapor, and blue the liquid. With

Fig. 10. Comparison of the bubble growth behaviors at initial stage of boiling (red color denotes vapor, blue represents liquid). (For interpretation of the references to color in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
712 X. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714

Fig. 11. Distribution of temperature and velocity vectors at the evaporator bottom just after the bubble generation for both phase change models (solid line denotes bubble
wall).

Fig. 12. Modeling results of volume fraction, temperature, and velocity contours in incubation period with the use of improved Lee model.
 X. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714
change models are also given, as shown in Fig. 11. It can be seen
that the bulk liquid in the pool are almost at the saturation temper-
ature (318 K) for two cases, but a clear thermal boundary layer is
observed at the inner surface of evaporator when the superheat
is considered, which is not observed without considering the
superheat. During the bubble growth in the case with improved
Lee model, the liquid near bubble wall and the vapor inside bubble
are both overheated. And the whole liquid pool is flowing upward
with the push of the single bubble. This may be the main reason
that responsible for the considerable rapid bubble growth phe-
nomenon during geyser boiling. When the original Lee model is
applied, bubble generation are observed simultaneously at several
sites upon the local liquid slightly exceed the saturation tempera-
ture, and the vapor temperature inside these bubbles is almost
equal to the saturation temperature. It is thus in this case that
the bubble growth velocity is low.
Fig. 12 shows the temperature and velocity distribution in incu-
bation period just before the expulsion initiation, with the use of
improved Lee model. It provides a deep insight into the heat trans-
fer mechanisms at this moment. It is apparent that the surface
evaporation and falling droplet evaporation phenomena are well
predicted in simulation as compared to the experimental observa-
tions revealed in Fig. 7. From the velocity distribution, it is found
that the entire liquid pool has a low convection velocity, associated
with the motion of thermal buoyancy, namely natural convection.
However, there is a relatively higher speed region at the pool bot-
tom, corresponding to the somewhat higher temperature there.
This is the fact that bubble preferentially emerge at the low part
of evaporator. Besides, it can also be seen that the upward vapor,
forming from the evaporation of liquid pool surface and falling-
back droplets, is accelerated in the upper part of evaporator and
kept at a merely uniform speed in the adiabatic section. But in
the condenser, the condensation process and returning liquid
would result in some eddy flow, and the upward vapor flow is
gradually decelerated in the top region. It is revealed in the tem-
perature distribution results that, except the thermal boundary
layer in liquid pool, the vapor temperature above liquid pool in
the evaporator is apparently higher than that of saturation, i.e., a
bit overheated. This is because of the inner surface there is not
completely wetted by falling liquid droplets, and the locations
where liquid evaporation take place are of relatively lower temper-
ature and in other areas the vapor is heated directly by the heating
wall. It also explains the local temporary boiling phenomenon at
the pool surface observed in incubation period during visualization
test. In addition, the vapor core temperature at adiabatic and con-
denser is, according to the modelling results, homogenous and just
somewhat higher than saturation temperature.
7. Conclusions
In this work, a combined CFD/visualization investigation was
carried out for the geyser boiling in two-phase closed ther-
mosyphon. To increase the prediction accuracy of CFD technique,
an improved phase change model is developed based on Lee model
by introducing the consideration of superheat for nucleation on
heating surface. Visualization experiments for the geyser boiling
were conducted first in connection with an all-glass ther-
mosyphon. And then the CFD modellings were performed with
the improved and original Lee models respectively based on VOF
method, with regard to the geyser boiling according to the exper-
imental conditions.
These results were analyzed and compared with the experi-
mental observations. It shows that the heat transfer behaviors
obtained from the improved Lee model are closer to the actual phe-
nomenon in visualization test, in particular the slug bubble growth
713
and flowing-up liquid phenomenon. And based on the temperature
contours, the considerably rapid bubble growth in expulsion per-
iod is resulted from the existence of thermal boundary layer in liq-
uid pool and the slightly overheated liquid near bubble wall. In
addition, the heat transfer behaviors, such as surface evaporation
and thermally natural convection of liquid pool, and the evapora-
tion of returning droplets during the incubation period are also
well reproduced, implying the better prediction performance of
this improved phase change model. Anyway, it can be concluded
that the improvement to Lee model by considering the superheat
is validated effective, and with the use of this model the details
of evolution of temperature and velocity filed during geyser boiling
in thermosyphon are comprehensively revealed.
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support received from
‘‘National Natural Science Foundation of China” [grant number
51676096] and ‘‘Top-notch Academic Programs Project of Jiangsu
Higher Education Institutions, TAPP” [grant number
PPZY2015A022].
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.
2018.01.005.
References
[1] D.Z. Guo, D.L. Sun, Z.Y. Li, W.Q. Tao, Phase change heat transfer simulation for
boiling bubbles arising from a vapor film by the VOSET method, Num. Heat
Transfer, Part A: Appl. 59 (2011) 857–881.
[2] N. Balcázar, O. Lehmkuhl, L. Jofre, J. Rigola, A. Oliva, A coupled volume-of-fluid/
level-set method for simulation of two-phase flows on unstructured meshes,
Comput. Fluids 124 (2016) 12–29.
[3] C.W. Hirt, B.D. Nichols, Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free
boundaries, J. Comput. Phys. 39 (1981) 201–225.
[4] M. Rudman, A volume-tracking method for incompressible multifluid flows
with large density variations, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 28 (1998) 357–378.
[5] S. Osher, J.A. Sethian, Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed:
Algorithms based on Hamilton-Jacobi formulations, J. Comput. Phys. 79 (1988)
12–49.
[6] G. Son, V.K. Dhir, N. Ramanujapu, Dynamics and heat transfer associated with a
single bubble during nucleate boiling on a horizontal surface, J. Heat Transfer
121 (1999) 623.
[7] S.O. Unverdi, G. Tryggvason, A front-tracking method for viscous,
incompressible, multi-fluid flows, J. Comput. Phys. 100 (1992) 25–37.
[8] D.L. Sun, W.Q. Tao, A coupled volume-of-fluid and level set (VOSET) method for
computing incompressible two-phase flows, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 53 (2010)
645–655.
[9] B. Fadhl, L.C. Wrobel, H. Jouhara, Numerical modelling of the temperature
distribution in a two-phase closed thermosyphon, Appl. Therm. Eng. 60 (2013)
122–131.
[10] Z. Yang, X.F. Peng, P. Ye, Numerical and experimental investigation of two
phase flow during boiling in a coiled tube, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 51 (2008)
1003–1016.
[11] S.C.K. De Schepper, G.J. Heynderickx, G.B. Marin, Modeling the evaporation of a
hydrocarbon feedstock in the convection section of a steam cracker, Comput.
Chem. Eng. 33 (2009) 122–132.
[12] B. Fadhl, L.C. Wrobel, H. Jouhara, CFD modelling of a two-phase closed
thermosyphon charged with R134a and R404a, Appl. Therm. Eng. 78 (2015)
482–490.
[13] Y. Wang, X. Wang, H. Chen, R.A. Taylor, Y. Zhu, A combined CFD/visualized
investigation of two-phase heat and mass transfer inside a horizontal loop
thermosiphon, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 112 (2017) 607–619.
[14] C.R. Kharangate, I. Mudawar, Review of computational studies on boiling and
condensation, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 108 (2017) 1164–1196.
[15] J.R.T.B.A. Nichita, A level set method and a heat transfer model implemented
into FLUENT for modeling of microscale two phase flows, AVT-178 Specialists’
714 X. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121 (2018) 703–714
Meeting on System Level Thermal Management for Enhanced Platform
Efficiency, Bucharest, Romania, 2010.
[16] D. Sun, J. Xu, L. Wang, Development of a vapor–liquid phase change model for
volume-of-fluid method in FLUENT, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 39
(2012) 1101–1106.
[17] I. Tanasawa, Advances in condensation heat transfer, Adv. Heat Transfer, San
Diego (1991).
[18] W.H. Lee, A pressure iteration scheme for two-phase flow modeling,
Multiphase Transport: Fundamentals, Reactor Safety, Applications,
Hemisphere, Washington, D.C., 1980, pp. 407–431.
[19] H. Jouhara, B. Fadhl, L.C. Wrobel, Three-dimensional CFD simulation of geyser
boiling in a two-phase closed thermosyphon, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy (2016).
[20] A. Alizadehdakhel, M. Rahimi, A.A. Alsairafi, CFD modeling of flow and heat
transfer in a thermosyphon, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 312–
318.
[21] D. Reay, P. Kew, Heat Pipes, Theory, Design and Applications, fifth ed.,
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006.
[22] L. Asmaie, M. Haghshenasfard, A. Mehrabani-Zeinabad, M. Nasr Esfahany,
Thermal performance analysis of nanofluids in a thermosyphon heat pipe
using CFD modeling, Heat Mass Transfer 49 (2013) 667–678.
[23] Z. Xu, Y. Zhang, B. Li, J. Huang, Modeling the phase change process for a two-
phase closed thermosyphon by considering transient mass transfer time
relaxation parameter, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 101 (2016) 614–619.
[24] Y.Y. Hsu, On the size range of active nucleation cavities on a heating surface, J.
Heat Transfer 84 (1962) 207.
[25] J.U. Brackbill, D.B. Kothe, C. Zemach, A continuum method for modeling
surface tension, J. Comput. Phys. 100 (1992) 335–354.
[26] H. Kuncoro, Y.F. Rao, K. Fukuda, An experimental study on the mechanism of
geysering in a closed two-phase thermosyphon, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 21 (1995)
1243–1252.
[27] C. Casarosa, E. Latrofa, A. Shelginski, The geyser effect in a two-phase
thermosyphon, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 26 (1983) 933–941.
[28] T.F. Lin, W.T. Lin, Y.L. Tsay, J.C. Wu, R.J. Shyu, Experimental investigation of
geyser boiling in an annular two-phase closed thermosyphon, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 38 (1995) 295–307.
[29] I. Khazaee, R. Hosseini, S.H. Noie, Experimental investigation of effective
parameters and correlation of geyser boiling in a two-phase closed
thermosyphon, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (2010) 406–412.