Vol. 2, No.

2, 2020, 89–98
Experimental and Computational Multiphase Flow https://doi.org/10.1007/s42757-019-0039-5

Measurement of local two-phase flow parameters of downward

bubbly flow in mini pipes

Tatsuya Hazuku1 (), Tomonori Ihara1, Takashi Hibiki2

1. Faculty of Marine Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 2-1-6 Etchujima, Koto, Tokyo 135-8533, Japan
2. School of Nuclear Engineering, Purdue University, 400 Central Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2017, USA

Abstract Keywords
In order to extend a precise database on local two-phase flow parameters in mini pipes, experiments two-phase flow
were conducted for adiabatic gas–liquid bubbly flows flowing down in vertical mini pipes with bubbly flow
inner diameters of 1.03, 3.00, and 5.00 mm. A stereo image-processing was applied to observe phase distribution
the phase distribution characteristics in pipe cross-section. The local flow parameters including lift force
profiles of void fraction, Sauter mean bubble diameter, and interfacial area concentration in pipe two-fluid model
cross-section were obtained at three axial locations in the test pipes with various flow conditions: interfacial area transport
superficial gas velocity of 0.00508–0.0834 m/s and superficial liquid velocity of 0.208–3.00 m/s. mini channel
The axial developments of the local flow parameters were discussed in detail based on the obtained
data and the visual observation. It was confirmed that the core peak distributions were formed Article History
at low liquid flow rate conditions in which the buoyancy force dominated while the wall peak Received: 6 April 2019
distributions were formed at high liquid flow rate conditions in which the body acceleration due Revised: 1 July 2019
to the frictional pressure gradient dominated. The result indicated the existence of lift force Accepted: 1 July 2019
pushing the bubbles towards the pipe wall even in vertical downward flows. The database
obtained through the present experiment is expected to be useful in modeling the interfacial Research Article
area transport terms, the validation of the existing lift force models as well as the benchmarking © Tsinghua University Press 2019
of various CFD simulation codes.

1 Introduction Mishima and Hibiki, 1996; Kandlikar, 2002; Serizawa et al.,

Gas–liquid two-phase flow in mini pipes is often utilized in
various heat transfer equipment such as high-power electronic
devices, heat exchangers of refrigerators or air-conditioning
systems, and so on. The thermal-hydraulic design of them has
made it important to understand the basic flow characteristics
of gas–liquid two-phase flow in the mini pipe. Based on
the previous literature (e.g., Kandlikar, 2004), the hydraulic
equivalent diameter of mini channels or mini pipes is reported
to be ranged from several hundred microns to several
millimeters. In the mini pipe, the effect of axial frictional
pressure loss is remarkable and the capillary force often
dominates the buoyancy force acting on the bubbles. For
example, the rising velocity of bubbles in stagnant water
becomes zero in a capillary tube (Gibson, 1913). It is therefore
anticipated that gas–liquid two-phase flow will differ from
that seen in a conventional pipe with a larger inner diameter,
and this fact significantly affects boiling heat transfer (e.g.,
 hazuku@kaiyodai.ac.jp
2002; Qu and Mudawar, 2003; Ghiaasiaan, 2003; Zhang et al.,
2006; Hibiki et al., 2007). In addition, the flow structure of
two-phase flow in mini pipe changes continuously with flow
development in the axial direction even under the adiabatic
condition because the axial pressure change due to frictional
pressure gradient is very large compared with that in
conventional-size pipes. For example, assuming the turbulent
single-phase flow, the increase rate of frictional pressure
gradient due to decrease in pipe diameter is approximated
with (DL / DS )1.25 using the Blasius’s friction factor, where
D is the pipe diameter and the subscripts of L and S
respectively mean the larger and smaller diameters. Remarkable
axial pressure change acts as flow-induced body acceleration
and causes rapid changes in the flow structure along the
flow direction (Hibiki et al., 2007; Hazuku et al., 2010). It is
therefore required to construct precise databases on local
two-phase flow parameters in the axial flow direction and
develop proper mechanistic models for the axial change of
90
two-phase flow parameters in mini pipes.
On the other hand, flow analysis based on the two-fluid
model is useful basis for the practical design of heat removal
systems (Ishii and Hibiki, 2010). In the two-fluid model
formulation, accurate models or correlations for predicting
two fundamental parameters of void fraction and interfacial
area concentration are required. The void fraction expresses
the phase distribution and is a required parameter for
thermal-hydraulic design in various industrial processes.
The drift-flux model (Zuber and Findlay, 1965) is often used
to predict the void fraction from setting parameters such as
superficial gas and liquid velocities. Hibiki et al. developed
the constitutive equations of the distribution parameter and
the drift velocity, which are applicable to the flows in mini
pipes, by taking the effect of gravity and the frictional pressure
loss gradient into account (Hibki and Ishii, 2003; Hibiki
et al., 2006). The interfacial area concentration describes the
available area for the interfacial transfer of mass, momentum,
and energy, and is a required parameter for a two-fluid
model formulation. Measurements of local interfacial area
concentration have been performed especially for bubbly
and slug flows in conventional-size pipes over the past 20
years. Some correlations have been proposed to predict volume
averaged interfacial area concentration (e.g., Delhaye and
Bricard, 1994; Kocamustafaogullari et al., 1994; Millies et al.,
1996; Hibiki and Ishii, 2001). As an advanced model of the
interfacial transfer terms in the two-fluid model, the interfacial
area transport equation has been proposed (Hibiki and Ishii,
2009). The successful development of the interfacial area
transport equation is considered to have produced a significant
improvement in the two-fluid model formulation and the
prediction accuracy of system codes. The interfacial area
concentration has thus been studied experimentally and
theoretically over the past twenty years (Hibiki and Ishii,
2009; Lin and Hibiki, 2014; Chuang and Hibiki, 2015; Hibiki
et al., 2018). At the first stage of the development of the
interfacial area transport equation, the equation for the flow
in conventional-size pipes was successfully developed by
modeling the sink and source terms of the interfacial area
concentration due to bubble coalescence and breakup (Liu
and Hibiki, 2018; Shen and Hibiki, 2018). In order to extend
this success to various pipe sizes, extensive efforts have been
made to gather data for relatively large and small diameter
pipes (Lin and Hibiki, 2014; Shen et al., 2018). However, very
few data of the local two-phase flow parameters including
void fraction and interfacial area concentration in mini pipes
are available in spite of its significance in two-phase flow
formulation. This is mainly due to the difficulty to measure
the local two-phase flow parameters in mini pipes with a
non-intrusive method.
In this context, authors constructed the precise databases
on the axial development of the void fraction and the
T. Hazuku, T. Ihara, T. Hibiki
interfacial area concentration of vertical upward and
horizontal bubbly flows in mini pipes with pipe sizes of 0.55,
0.79, and 1.02 mm (Hazuku et al., 2010). The local two-phase
flow parameters of vertical upward bubbly flows and bubbly
flows under microgravity in 3.00, 5.00, and 9.00 mm diameter
pipes were also compared through the previous experiments
(Hazuku et al., 2012, 2015, 2016). The results showed
significant differences between the flow characteristics in
horizontal and vertical mini pipes as well as under microgravity.
It is generally considered that the dependence of gravity on
the two-phase flow structure in mini pipes is insignificant
because the surface tension and the viscous force from the
wall dominate rather than gravity in the mini pipe flow (e.g.,
Mishima and Hibiki, 1996). These results imply that the effect
of gravity on the flow characteristics such as the phase
distribution, relative motion between phases, axial changes
of interfacial transfer terms and so on should be considered
in the modeling for the mini pipe flow.
In order to extend the database on local two-phase flow
parameters and to evaluate the gravity effect on them in the
mini pipe, axial developments of void fraction and interfacial
area concentration profiles in the vertical downward bubbly
flow in mini pipes are experimentally evaluated in the present
study. Since the buoyancy force in the downward bubbly
flow acts on the bubbles in the opposite flow direction, the
dominant factor among gravity, surface tension, inertia as
well as the body acceleration due to frictional pressure
gradient in characterizing the bubbly flow structures in the
mini pipe will be found through the experiment changing
the pipe diameter and the flow rates. The data are collected
for adiabatic downward bubbly flows in mini pipes with pipe
sizes of 1.03, 3.00, and 5.00 mm. A stereo image-processing
was applied to observe the phase distribution characteristics
in pipe cross-section. The local flow parameters including
profiles of void fraction, Sauter mean bubble diameter, and
interfacial area concentration in pipe cross-section are
obtained at three axial locations in the test pipes. The axial
developments of the local flow parameters are discussed
based on the obtained data and the visual observation.
Although considerable effort has been expended in the past
to study the characteristics of two-phase flow in mini channels
as described in the earlier, very few detailed measurements
have been made of the phenomena occurring in a developing
flow in mini pipes. The database obtained through the present
experiment is expected to be useful in modeling the interfacial
area transport terms, the validation of the existing lift force
models as well as the benchmarking of various CFD simulation
codes.
2 Experiment
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a flow loop. In this
Measurement of local two-phase flow parameters of downward bubbly flow in mini pipes
experiment, non-intrusive image-processing was used to
measure the axial development of flow parameters. The test
section was a round pipe made of fluorinated ethylene
propylene (FEP) with an index of refraction of 1.34, similar
to that of water (1.33) to avoid image distortion. Three
pipes with nominal diameters of 1, 3, and 5 mm were used as
test pipes. Because the tolerance of inner diameter of FEP
pipe is ±0.1 mm based on manufacturer specifications, there
is uncertainty of pipe diameter variation in axial direction.
This uncertainty is not negligible in the experiment, especially
for 1 mm diameter pipe. Thus the inner diameter should be
evaluated accurately as the averaged value in pipe axial
direction. It is, however, quite difficult to measure the local
pipe diameter in axial direction directly because cutting plane
of the FEP pipe is deformed due to its soft material. Therefore,
the diameter of the test pipe with a nominal diameter of
1 mm was determined by using the analytical solution of
the friction factor for laminar flow as follows (Mishima and
Hibiki, 1996). The friction factor for laminar flow in a round
pipe is given by the following well-known equation for
Hagen–Poiseuille flow as
64
f=
N Ref
The diameter was determined from the above equation by
using the measured friction factor, measured flow velocity,
and the fluid properties. The error in the diameter so obtained
was estimated to be within ±1%. The evaluated value was
1.03 mm. The lengths of test pipes with diameters were
550 mm for 1.03 mm pipe and 800 mm for 3.00 and 5.00 mm
pipes.
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of flow loop.
91
Nitrogen gas was supplied from a nitrogen bottle and
was introduced into a mixing chamber through a gas injector.
As shown in Fig. 2, the gas injector consisted of a stainless
needle as a bubble injection nozzle with inner and outer
diameters of 0.1 and 0.25 mm, and a tapered acrylic cylinder.
No significant swirl flow near the test section inlet was
observed in video images of the trajectories of dispersed
bubbles. The nitrogen gas and purified water were mixed in
the mixing chamber and the mixture then flowed through
the test section. Gas and liquid flow meters were installed
at the upstream of the test section inlet to set the gas and
liquid flow rates. Since the flow rates in the experiment
using 1.03 mm diameter pipe is very low, the nitrogen gas
and water were collected to measure their volumes after
flowing through the test section. As shown in Fig. 1, the
nitrogen gas and water were collected by a measuring cylinder
placed in the gas–liquid separator, and then the flow rates
of each phase were determined from the volume collected per
unit time. It should be noted that the maximum solubility
of nitrogen in water is negligible in these experimental
conditions. The loop temperature was kept at 25 C within
±0.5 C. The difference between the inlet and outlet tem-
peratures was within ±0.5 C. The pressure and differential
pressure measurements were made with a pressure sensor
and differential pressure cell, respectively. The pressure
devices detected the system pressure and differential pressure
through a tiny hole in the test section wall (diameter 0.2 mm).
Because the locations of the pressure tap were away from
the test section inlet and outlet, the pressure disturbance due
to the inlet and outlet was not considered. Measurement
accuracy was conservatively estimated to be 1%. An electrical
conductivity meter was installed at the gas–liquid separator
to monitor water quality. The experiment was performed at
an electrical conductivity less than 1 μS/cm.
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of mixing chamber.
92 T. Hazuku, T. Ihara, T. Hibiki

Viewing sections for recording bubble images in the Table 2 Experimental conditions in 3.00 mm pipe
test pipe were included at three axial locations, whose axial Flow parameter #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
distances from the pipe inlet (z) normalized by the pipe jf (m/s) 0.299 0.610 0.894 1.49 1.99
diameter (D) were z/D = 15, 75, and 150 for 1.03 mm diameter jg (m/s) 0.00600 0.0121 0.0168 0.0280 0.0352
z / D=45
pipe, z/D = 45, 75, and 150 for 3.00 mm diameter pipe, and
jg z / D=75
(m/s) 0.00608 0.0126 0.0170 0.0255 0.0357
z/D = 34, 72, and 110 for 5.00 mm diameter pipe. The water
jg (m/s) 0.00596 0.0119 0.0166 0.0276 0.0368
boxes were placed at the viewing sections to minimize the z /D=150

image distortion due to refraction. The local flow parameters α z /D=45

(—) 0.0230 0.0116 0.0126 0.0164 0.0184
of bubbly two-phase flow, including the void fraction, Sauter DSm z / D=45
(mm) 0.914 0.689 0.791 0.795 0.797
mean bubble diameter, and interfacial area concentration ai z /D=45
(m )−1
151 101 95.6 123 139
profiles, were measured by a stereo image-processing method
(SIM) using two high-speed video cameras and two plate Table 3 Experimental conditions in 5.00 mm pipe
lights at each viewing section. The details of the SIM can be
Flow parameter #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
seen in the previous papers (Takamasa and Miyoshi, 1993;
jf (m/s) 0.294 0.499 0.990 1.50 3.00
Takamasa et al., 2003; Hazuku et al., 2012). In the SIM
procedure, bubble interfacial configurations, including the jg z / D=34
(m/s) 0.00508 0.0134 0.0253 0.0395 0.0834
diameters and positions of bubbles in the pipe cross-section, jg z / D=72
(m/s) 0.00511 0.0124 0.0249 0.0393 —
were obtained by image-processing two backlit images taken jg z /D=110
(m/s) 0.00501 0.0123 0.0249 0.0393 —
at right angles to each other. The void fraction, interfacial α (—) 0.0263 0.0201 0.023 0.0211 0.0198
z /D=34
area concentration, and bubble Sauter mean diameter profiles DSm (mm)
z / D=34 2.13 1.58 1.53 1.46 1.04
in pipe cross-section were calculated from the obtained
ai z /D=34
(m−1) 74.0 76.3 90.6 87.1 114
images with an assumption of an ellipsoidal bubble.
More than 1000 bubbles were sampled to maintain
similar statistics between the different combinations of 3 Results and discussion
experimental conditions. The void fractions measured by the
image-processing method agreed with those obtained in 3.1 Characteristics of local two-phase flow parameters
a 1.09 mm round pipe by neutron radiography (Mishima
Figures 3, 4, and 5 respectively show the typical flow images
and Hibiki, 1996) within the averaged relative deviation
along the test pipes in 1.03, 3.00, and 5.00 mm diameter
of 12.3%. The image-processing method for the interfacial
pipes. As shown in the figure, bubble number decreases
area concentration measurement was also validated by a
and bubble diameter increases due to bubble coalescence
double-sensor conductivity probe method. A separate test
along the test pipe. It should be noted here that bubble
was performed in a 25.4 mm round pipe, yielding good
breakup was not observed in the present experiment. For
agreement for the interfacial area concentration measurement,
relatively low liquid flow rate conditions (for example,
within the averaged relative deviation of 6.95% (Hibiki
superficial liquid velocity, <jf> = 0.208 m/s in 1.03 mm
et al., 1998). Since the measurement accuracy of the double
diameter pipe, <jf> = 0.299 m/s in 3.00 mm pipe, and <jf> =
sensor probe method is reported to be 7% (Wu and Ishii,
0.294 m/s in 5.00 mm pipe), majority of bubbles flow down
1999), the measurement accuracy of the image-processing
continuously near the pipe center. At high flow rate conditions
method is within 15% by conservative estimate. The
(for example, <jf> = 2.88 m/s in 1.03 mm pipe, <jf> = 1.99 m/s
experimental conditions in each test pipe are tabulated in
in 3.00 mm pipe, and <jf> = 1.50 m/s or 3.00 m/s in 5.00 mm
Tables 1–3.
diameter pipe), bubbles sliding on the pipe wall surface,
namely the sliding bubbles, are formed.
Table 1 Experimental conditions in 1.03 mm pipe
Figure 6 shows the axial development of measured local
Flow parameter #1 #2 #3 void fraction profile, α in pipe cross-section in vertical
jf (m/s) 0.208 0.305 2.88 downward bubbly flows. Open, triangle, and square symbols
jg z / D=15
(m/s) 0.00587 0.00554 0.0470 in each graph represent the data obtained at each axial
jg z / D=75
(m/s) 0.00593 0.00556 0.0497 location in the test pipes. The graphs displaying from the
jg (m/s) — — 0.0535
top to the bottom show in order of increase in liquid flow
z /D=150
rate and the numbers indicated at right side correspond
α z /D=15
(—) 0.0608 0.0168 0.0119
to those in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Left, middle, and right hand
DSm z / D=15
(mm) 0.583 0.404 0.314
graphs respectively show the data in 1.03, 3.00, and 5.00 mm
ai (m−1) 625 249 228
z / D=15
diameter pipes. In the same way, profiles of the local Sauter
Measurement of local two-phase flow parameters of downward bubbly flow in mini pipes
Fig. 3 Typical flow images in 1.03 mm diameter pipe.
Fig. 4 Typical flow images in 3.00 mm diameter pipe.
mean bubble diameter, DSm and the local interfacial area
concentration, ai are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.
Sauter mean bubble diameter was obtained from the local
void fraction and the local interfacial area concentration
with DSm = 6α/ai.
As shown by the void fraction profile, axial changes of
the void fraction profiles are pronounced at low liquid flow
rate conditions and core peak distributions which have sharp
peak intensity near the pipe center are formed in all test
93
Fig. 5 Typical flow images in 5.00 mm diameter pipe.
pipes (Fig. 6, upper graphs). As the axial distance increases,
the peak near the pipe center tends to gradually decrease in
amplitude in 3.00 and 5.00 mm diameter pipes. This result
is mainly caused by two reasons: increase in the bubble
diameter due to bubble coalescence along the test pipe
(Fig. 7, upper graphs), and decrease in gas volume due to
increase in static pressure along the test pipe at such low
liquid flow rate condition in which hydrostatic pressure
loss dominates in total pressure loss.
As liquid flow rate increases, the void peak near the pipe
center disappears and the profile tends to become the wall
peak type with a broad peak between the pipe center and the
wall. The value of void fraction near the pipe center tends
to gradually increase with axial distance. This is mainly
caused by an increase in bubble diameter due to bubble
coalescence and pressure reduction due to increase in frictional
pressure loss (Fig. 7, bottom graphs).
As for the interfacial area concentration profiles, the
value near the pipe center gradually decreases with axial
distance in 3.00 mm diameter pipe (Fig. 8, middle graphs in
upper part). This is mainly caused by increase in the bubble
diameter due to bubble coalescence (Fig. 7, middle graph in
upper part). On the other hand, the axial changes of interfacial
area concentration at low liquid flow rate condition in 1.03
and 5.00 mm diameter pipes are insignificant (Fig. 8, left and
right hand graphs in upper part). As shown in Fig. 7, Sauter
mean bubble diameters near the pipe center in 1.03 and
5.00 mm diameter pipes are respectively more than 0.75 and
3 mm, that means the bubble diameter covers the area more
than half of pipe cross-section. This fact might cause restriction
of relative motion between bubbles by presence of the wall
and decrease in bubble collision frequency, resulting in the
94
Fig. 6 Void fraction profile in pipe cross-section.
insignificant axial change of interfacial concentration profile
in 1.03 and 5.00 mm diameter pipes.
At high liquid flow rate condition in which the wall peak
distributions form, although the interfacial area concentration
near the pipe wall tends to gradually decrease with axial
distance due to bubble coalescence (Fig. 8, bottom graphs),
the amount of change is less than that at low liquid flow
rate condition. This may be because the residence time of
two-phase flow in the length of the pipes tested and bubble
coalescence efficiency are reduced at higher liquid flow
rates, resulting in suppressed bubble coalescence.
T. Hazuku, T. Ihara, T. Hibiki
3.2 Effect of flow parameters on phase distribution
characteristics
Next, the phase distribution characteristics in vertical
downward bubbly flows are quantitatively evaluated using
a normalized peak void fraction NαP and a normalized void
peak position N raP , as defined by the following equations.
NαP º ( αP - αC ) αP (1)
N raP º raP R (2)
where αP, αC, rαP, and R are void fraction at the peak, void
Measurement of local two-phase flow parameters of downward bubbly flow in mini pipes 95

Fig. 7 Sauter mean bubble diameter profile in pipe cross-section.

fraction at the pipe center, radial void peak position in pipe
cross-section, and the pipe radius, respectively. NαP is an
index related to the ratio of void peak intensity to the void
fraction at the pipe center. NαP = 0 and 1 indicate a very
sharp core peak and no core peak, respectively. NrαP is an
index related to the position of the void peak in the pipe
cross-section. Increasing NrαP from 0 to 1 means the radial
position of void peak moves from the pipe center to the wall.
Figures 9 and 10 show, respectively, the values of NαP
and NrαP. Items (a), (b), and (c) in each figure indicate the
dependencies of the liquid Reynolds number Ref , the
Sauter mean bubble diameter normalized by the pipe diameter
<DSm>/D, and the ratio of frictional pressure gradient to
buoyancy MF/Δρg on the normalized parameters, respectively.
The open circle, triangle, and square symbols represent the
results in 1.03, 3.00, and 5.00 mm diameter pipes, respectively.
With respect to the Reynolds number (Figs. 9(a) and
10(a)), both values of NαP and NrαP are null at relatively low
liquid flow rates (Ref ≤ 2000). These results indicate that core
peak distributions with strong peak intensity are formed at
low liquid flow rates. At relatively high liquid flow rates like
Ref ≥ 3000, the void peak position tends to move towards
96
Fig. 8 Interfacial area concentration profile in pipe cross-section.
the pipe wall and this transition of the peak position occurs
in higher range of liquid Reynolds numbers as the pipe
diameter becomes larger.
With respect to the Sauter mean bubble diameter
(Figs. 9(b) and 10(b)), core peak distributions are formed
regardless of the pipe diameter when <DSm>/D > 0.4, while
dependency of the Sauter mean bubble diameter is insignificant
when <DSm>/D < 0.4.
With respect to the MF/Δρg (Figs. 9(c) and 10(c)), both
values of NαP and NrαP in the range of MF/Δρg < 1 become
almost null, i.e., the core peak distribution, regardless of
T. Hazuku, T. Ihara, T. Hibiki
the pipe diameter. In contrast, the values of NαP tend to
gradually increase and the values of N raP become over 0.5 in
the range of MF/Δρg > 1. These results indicate that core peak
distribution disappears and the distribution tends to gradually
transit to wall peak distribution at MF/Δρg  1.
Since the buoyancy in the downward bubbly flow acts
on the bubbles in the opposite flow direction, it is considered
that the direction of lift force changes towards the pipe center
and only core peak distribution pattern can be formed.
However, the present result clearly indicates the existing of
lift force pushing the bubbles towards the pipe wall causes
Measurement of local two-phase flow parameters of downward bubbly flow in mini pipes 97

Fig. 9 Normalized peak void fraction.

Fig. 10 Radial void peak position.

the formation of wall peak distribution even in the downward
bubbly flow. The formation of the wall peak distribution in
the downward bubbly flow may be caused by the relative
velocity due to the body acceleration which is generated by
large frictional pressure gradient, as expressed by following
equation (Tomiyama et al., 1998; Hibiki and Ishii, 2003;
Hibiki et al., 2006, 2009).
Although validation by simultaneous measurements with
local relative velocity between phases would be required in
order to evaluate validity of the above explained mechanism,
the expression by Eq. (3) might become useful in various
two-phase flow modeling.
4 Conclusions

8 rb
vr vr = [ Δρg (1 - α ) + M F ] (3)
3 C D ρf
where vr , rb , CD , ρf , Δρ , and g are, respectively, the relative
velocity between phases, bubble radius, drag coefficient,
liquid density, density difference between phases, and
gravitational acceleration. A mathematical symbol of < >
means the area-averaged value.
If Eq. (3) is applicable to the downward flow in mini pipe,
the relative velocity, vr takes a negative value at MF/Δρg
< 1 and a positive value at MF/Δρg > 1. It is confirmed that
a threshold value at the phase distribution transition was
MF/Δρg  1 in the present analysis. Thus, the mechanisms
behind the lift force formation due to the relative velocity
between both phases may be reasonably explained by Eq. (3).
Local two-phase flow parameters including profiles of void
fraction, Sauter mean bubble diameter, and interfacial area
concentration in the vertical downward bubbly flow in
mini pipes with inner diameters of 1.03, 3.00, and 5.00 mm
were measured using a stereo image-processing method.
The axial developments of the flow parameters and the
gravity effect on them were discussed in detail based on the
obtained data and the visual observation. It was confirmed
that the core peak distributions were formed at low liquid
flow rate conditions in which the buoyancy force dominated
while the wall peak distributions were formed at high liquid
flow rate conditions in which the body acceleration due
to the frictional pressure gradient dominated. The result
indicated the existence of lift force pushing the bubbles
98
towards the pipe wall even in vertical downward flows. The
database obtained through the present experiment will be
useful in the validation of the existing flow models or the
benchmarking of various CFD simulation codes.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Professor T. Takamasa and
Mrs. Y. Ohkubo of Tokyo University of Marine Science and
Technology for their assistance in conducting the experiment.
References
Chuang, T. J., Hibiki, T. 2015. Vertical upward two-phase flow CFD using
interfacial area transport equation. Prog Nucl Energ, 85: 415–427.
Delhaye, J. M., Bricard, P. 1994. Interfacial area in bubbly flow:
Experimental data and correlations. Nucl Eng Des, 151: 65–77.
Ghiaasiaan, S. M. 2003. Gas–liquid two-phase flow and boiling in
mini and microchannels. Multiphase Sci Tech, 15: 323–334.
Gibson, A. H. 1913. LXXXIV. On the motion of long air-bubbles in a
vertical tube. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical
Magazine and Journal of Science, 26: 952–965.
Hazuku, T., Hibiki, T., Takamasa, T. 2016. Interfacial area transport
due to shear collision of bubbly flow in small-diameter pipes. Nucl
Eng Des, 310: 592–603.
Hazuku, T., Takamasa, T., Hibiki T. 2012. Characteristics of developing
vertical bubbly flow under normal and microgravity conditions.
Int J Multiphase Flow, 38: 53–66.
Hazuku, T., Takamasa, T., Hibiki, T. 2010. Interfacial-area transport
of vertical upward bubbly flow in mini pipe. Int J Microscale and
Nanoscale Thermal and Fluid Transport Phenomena, 1: 59–84.
Hazuku, T., Takamasa, T., Hibiki, T. 2015. Phase distribution
characteristics of bubbly flow in mini pipes under normal and
microgravity conditions. Microgravity Sci Tech, 27: 75–96.
Hibiki, T., Hazuku, T., Takamasa, T., Ishii, M. 2007. Some characteristics
of developing bubbly flow in a vertical mini pipe. Int J Heat Fluid
Fl, 28: 1034–1048.
Hibiki, T., Hazuku, T., Takamasa, T., Ishii, M. 2009. Interfacial-area
transport equation at reduced-gravity conditions. AIAA J, 47:
1123–1131.
Hibiki, T., Hogsett, S., Ishii, M. 1998. Local measurement of interfacial
area, interfacial velocity and liquid turbulence in two-phase flow.
Nucl Eng Des, 184: 287–304.
Hibiki, T., Ishii, M. 2001. Interfacial area concentration in steady
fully-developed bubbly flow. Int J Heat Mass Tran, 44: 3443–3461.
Hibiki, T., Ishii, M. 2003. One-dimensional drift-flux model and
constitutive equations for relative motion between phases in various
two-phase flow regimes. Int J Heat Mass Tran, 46: 4935–4948.
Hibiki, T., Ishii, M. 2009. Interfacial area transport equations for gas–
liquid flow. The Journal of Computational Multiphase Flows, 1:
1–22.
Hibiki, T., Ozaki, T., Shen, X. Z., Miwa, S., Kinoshita, I., Hazuku, T.,
Rassame, S. 2018. Constitutive equations for vertical upward two-
T. Hazuku, T. Ihara, T. Hibiki
phase flow in rod bundle. Int J Heat Mass Tran, 127: 1252–1266.
Hibiki, T., Takamasa, T., Ishii, M., Gabriel, K. S. 2006. One-dimensional
drift-flux model at reduced gravity conditions. AIAA J, 44:
1635–1642.
Ishii, M., Hibiki, T. 2010. Thermo-Fluid Dynamics of Two-Phase Flow,
2nd edn. Springer Science & Business Media.
Kandlikar, S. G. 2002. Two-phase flow patterns, pressure drop, and
heat transfer during boiling in minichannel flow passages of
compact evaporators. Heat Transfer Eng, 23: 5–23.
Kandlikar, S. G. 2004. Heat transfer mechanisms during flow boiling
in microchannels. J Heat Transfer, 126: 8–16.
Kocamustafaogullari, G., Huang, W. D., Razi, J. 1994. Measurement
and modeling of average void fraction, bubble size and interfacial
area. Nucl Eng Des, 148: 437–453.
Lin, C. H., Hibiki, T. 2014. Databases of interfacial area concentration
in gas–liquid two-phase flow. Prog Nucl Energ, 74: 91–102.
Liu, H., Hibiki, T. 2018. Bubble breakup and coalescence models for
bubbly flow simulation using interfacial area transport equation.
Int J Heat Mass Tran, 126: 128–146.
Milliest, M., Drew, D. A., Lahey, R. T. Jr. 1996. A first order relaxation
model for the prediction of the local interfacial area density in
two-phase flows. Int J Multiphase Flow, 22: 1073–1104.
Mishima, K., Hibiki, T. 1996. Some characteristics of air–water two-
phase flow in small diameter vertical tubes. Int J Multiphase Flow,
22: 703–712.
Qu, W. L., Mudawar, I. 2003. Measurement and prediction of pressure
drop in two-phase micro-channel heat sinks. Int J Heat Mass Tran,
46: 2737–2753.
Serizawa, A., Feng, Z. P., Kawara, Z. 2002. Two-phase flow in
microchannels. Exp Therm Fluid Sci, 26: 703–714.
Shen, X. Z., Hibiki, T. 2018. Bubble coalescence and breakup model
evaluation and development for two-phase bubbly flows. Int J
Multiphase Flow, 109: 131–149.
Shen, X. Z., Schlegel, J. P., Hibiki, T., Nakamura, H. 2018. Some
characteristics of gas–liquid two-phase flow in vertical large-
diameter channels. Nucl Eng Des, 333: 87–98.
Takamasa, T., Goto, T., Hibiki, T., Ishii, M. 2003. Experimental study
of interfacial area transport of bubbly flow in small-diameter
tube. Int J Multiphase Flow, 29: 395–409.
Takamasa, T., Miyoshi, N. 1993. Measurements of bubble interface
configurations in vertical bubbly flow using image-processing
method. Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers
Series B, 59: 2403–2409.
Tomiyama, A., Kataoka, I., Zun, I., Sakaguchi, T. 1998. Drag coefficients
of single bubbles under normal and micro gravity conditions.
JSME International Journal Series B, 41: 472–479.
Wu, Q., Ishii, M. 1999. Sensitivity study on double-sensor conductivity
probe for the measurement of interfacial area concentration in
bubbly flow. Int J Multiphase Flow, 25: 155–173.
Zhang, W., Hibiki, T., Mishima, K., Mi, Y. 2006. Correlation of critical
heat flux for flow boiling of water in mini-channels. Int J Heat
Mass Tran, 49: 1058–1072.
Zuber, N., Findlay, J. A. 1965. Average volumetric concentration in
two-phase flow systems. J Heat Transf, 87: 453–468.