Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 64 (2015) 134–141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science

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

Research on the steam jet length with different nozzle structures

Daotong Chong, Quanbin Zhao, Fang Yuan, Wei Wang, Weixiong Chen ⇑, Junjie Yan
State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, PR China

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

Article history: The effect of nozzle structure on the steam jet lengths of submerged condensation in quiescent water is
Received 7 October 2014 investigated theoretically and experimentally. Two typical nozzles are analyzed and tested. Theoretical
Received in revised form 5 February 2015 analysis shows that nozzle structure has a great influence on the steam jet length but was paid little
Accepted 12 February 2015
attention before. Then a theoretical model for steam jet length with different nozzle structures is pro-
Available online 21 February 2015
posed based on the expansion and compression wave theory. Theoretical model indicates that steam
jet length is greatly affected by nozzle structure. The steam jet length of straight pipe nozzle is longer
Keywords:
than that of orifice nozzle under the same pool water temperature and steam mass flux, and the steam
Condensation
Steam jet length
jet length is inverse proportion to the maximum expansion ratio, approximately. Then the theoretical
Nozzle structure model is verified by the experimental results. Finally, a universal semi-empirical correlation considering
Universal correlation the nozzle structure is proposed. The prediction length corresponds to the experimental data very
well and the discrepancy is within ±25% for different nozzle structures for the steam mass flux 400–
800 kgm2s1 and water temperature 10–70 °C.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The phenomenon of direct contact condensation (DCC) occurs
in nature and industry widely. The steam jet condensation is one
typical process with DCC phenomenon, which is accompanied with
exchange of mass, momentum and energy across the two-phase
interface, and results in high efficiency of heat transfer. For this
characteristic, the steam jet condensation has been applied for a
series of industry operations, such as the In-containment
Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) and the Pressure
Suppression Pool (PSP) in nuclear reactor safety system. The high
heat transfer efficiency between the jet steam and subcooled water
has great advantage in condensing the steam and controlling the
reactor pressure. So the research on the steam jet condensation
is significant to the industrial application.
When steam is discharged into subcooled water through a noz-
zle or a sparger, the direct contact condensation occurs between
steam jet plume and subcooled water. The research on steam jet
condensation mainly concludes the condensation regime [1–5],
the steam jet pattern like the steam jet length [2,6–9], the
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 29 82667753.
E-mail addresses: dtchong@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (D. Chong), zqb8031110.com@stu.
xjtu.edu.cn (Q. Zhao), spiritwalkers@163.com (F. Yuan), wwy.023031211@stu.xjtu.
edu.cn (W. Wang), chenweixiong@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (W. Chen), yanjj@mail.xjtu.edu.
cn (J. Yan).
coefficient of heat transfer [2,10–14] and the steam jet condensa-
tion load [15–18].
For the steam jet condensation, the steam jet length is a very
important parameter which is closely related with steam plume
shape [2,8,10], heat transfer [2,5,8,10,19] and condensation oscilla-
tion [20–22]. Firstly, the capacity of heat transfer is reflected from
steam jet length directly. Generally, combining the steam jet
length with the distribution of steam axial temperature
[10,19,23,24], the coefficient of heat transfer can be obtained
approximately. Usually, a negative correlation between steam jet
length and heat transfer coefficient is shown in the previous work
[10,12]. Secondly, according to Hong et al. [20], the condensation
oscillation is generated along with the variation of steam jet
length, and frequency of condensation oscillation is affected by
the steam jet length greatly. So, accurate value of steam jet length
is important to predict condensation oscillation frequency which
has great significance to eliminate resonance. What’s more, accord-
ing to Shah et al. [25], the performance of steam jet pump is affect-
ed by the length of mixing section. The design of mixing section
length closely relates to the steam jet length. Thus, the research
on the steam jet length is very important for the industry.
Due to its importance, the dimensionless steam jet length (the
ratio of the steam jet length to the hole/nozzle inner diameter)
has been investigated in the past decades. Kerney et al. [6] pro-
posed a theoretical model to predict the steam jet length based
on the conversation of mass and energy. The steam plume was

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2015.02.015
0894-1777/Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 D. Chong et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 64 (2015) 134–141 135

Nomenclature

L steam jet length, m G0 steam mass flux, kgm2s1

D diameter of nozzle outlet, m Gm mean steam mass flux, kgm2s1
Rex the maximum expansion diameter, m B condensation driving potential, Cp (Ts  T1)/hfg
r radius of nozzle outlet, m Sm mean transport modulus, h/CpG0
m steam mass flux, kgs1 Cp liquid specific heat, Jkg1K1
R steam condensation rate, kgm2s1 Ts saturation temperature, K
h heat transfer coefficient, Jm2K1s1 T1 pool water temperature, K
hfg heat of condensation, Jkg1 V velocity of steam flow, ms1

assumed to be axial symmetry and the steam-water interface was
in an equilibrium station. According to their theoretical model, the
jet length is closely related with the steam mass flux (G0), dimen-
sionless driving potential for the condensation process (B) and
transport modulus (Sm). Then a correlation of dimensionless jet
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
length was obtained and expressed as L=D ¼ 0:5ðBSm Þ1 G0 =Gm .
But in this correlation, the transport modulus (Sm) was affected
by many factors and it was hard to obtain directly. Research result
showed that it was mainly affected by steam mass flux and con-
densation potential. So the basic form, L=D ¼ f ðB; G0 =Gm Þ, was
applied and adopted widely by the later researchers, as shown in
Table 1. Weimer et al. [7] also developed a model that treated
the condensation jet as a two-phase, axial symmetry free jet with
vapor bubbles and liquid dispersed throughout the jet. Then a
semi-empirical correlation of jet length was obtained with the den-
sity ratio of water to saturated steam, the condensation driving
potential and steam mass flux.
Comparing the correlations in Table 1, it indicates that the
equation proposed by Kerney et al. [6] is applied widely. All the
correlations conducted that the dimensionless steam plume length
was reasonably well for their individual flow conditions. But the
differences among them were obvious. The differences may mainly
attribute to the nozzle structural differences in each study. For
example, the straight-pipe nozzles were researched by Kerney
et al. [6], while sonic and supersonic nozzles were adopted in the
study of Wu et al. [8,12].
According to the previous investigations (Kerney et al. [6],
Weimer et al. [7], Chun et al. [2], Kim et al. [10]), correlations pre-
dicted that the steam plume length was appropriate well for their
individual nozzle structures. But very few papers have considered
the effect of nozzle structure on the steam jet length. According to
literature (Deckker and Chang [26], Liu et al. [27]), the flow para-
meters, such as the discharge coefficient, were affected by the
structural parameter greatly. The discharge coefficient closely
relates to the flow uniformity which affects the steam jet length
greatly. So, the structural parameter also affects the steam jet
length greatly. The structural parameter mainly includes the ratio
of the orifice length to its diameter and the area ratio of orifice
to nozzle inlet. According to Wu et al. [8,12], there was distinct dif-
ference for the steam jet length between sonic nozzle and super-
sonic nozzle. Also, the difference of steam jet length existed
among the supersonic nozzles which were different in design pres-
sure ratio. So, the structure parameter (design pressure ratio) was
proposed to correct the basic steam jet length form by Wu et al.
[8,12]. The difference in steam jet length with different nozzle
structures indicated that the nozzle structure was another impor-
tant influence factor, which was lack of attention by now. Thus, in
this study, the effect of nozzle structure on the steam jet length in
quiescent water was investigated theoretically by comparing two
typical nozzles. Then, an experiment was conducted to further
illustrate the influence of the structure on the steam jet length.
2. The analysis of steam flow with different nozzles
According to the above analysis, the nozzle structure has influ-
ence on the steam jet length. As shown in Table 1, the straight-pipe
nozzles were applied by Kerney et al. [6] and Kim et al. [10], sonic
nozzles were applied by Wu et al. [8,12]. However, the flow in son-
ic nozzle was very similar to that in straight-pipe and flow was
well developed for both these two type nozzles when the steam
leaves the nozzle. Thus, as a representative, the straight-pipe noz-
zle was applied in this study. Also, as a comparison, the nozzle
reported by Song and Kim [28] was selected and named orifice
nozzle, as shown in Fig. 1. Those two kinds of typical nozzle are
distinctly different in structure. For the orifice nozzle, the length
of orifice is considered as sharp edge. The ellipsoidal plume and
the ideal gas were assumed, then according to Miller [29], the sonic
line for those two kinds of nozzle was different. In Fig. 1, the line of
AB and AA0 BB0 (the red1 line in Fig. 1) was the sonic lines of straight-
pipe and orifice nozzles, respectively.
Based on the theory of expansion and compression wave [30],
the ellipsoidal ideal gas plume can be mainly contribution to the
expansion wave which has the role of transferring the ideal gas
flow direction when the shape of wall or free surface changed.
The flow deflection angle can be calculated with the Prandtl–
Meyer equation:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k þ 1 1 k  1 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
mðMÞ ¼ tg ðM  1Þ  tg 1 M2  1 ð1Þ
k1 kþ1
Then the deflection angle can be expressed as Eq. (2) when ideal
gas flows across the first expansion wave:
a ¼ mðMAE Þ  mð1Þ ð2Þ
According to the theory of expansion and compression wave,
ideal gas flow direction will keep parallel after flow across the sec-
ond expansion wave, so the second deflection angle can be calcu-
lated as
a1 ¼ mðMEC Þ  mðMAE Þ ð3Þ
where MAE is the Mach number of Mach wave AE and MEC is the
Mach number of Mach wave EC.
With obtaining the Mach number of first Mach wave, the deflec-
tion angle and Mach number of second Mach wave is calculated
easily. Based on the deflection angle and the Mach angle, l1 and
l2, the maximum expansion ratio of ideal gas plume can be
obtained based on the geometrical model.
Rex sinða þ l1 Þ sinða þ l2 Þ
e¼ ¼ ð4Þ
D sin l1 sin l2
1
For interpretation of color in Fig. 1, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.
136 D. Chong et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 64 (2015) 134–141

Table 1
Correlations for jet length.

References Correlations for jet length Dimensionless steam jet length Nozzles
Kerney et al. [6] 1 0:5 2.5–14 Straight-pipe nozzle
L=D ¼ 0:2588B ðG0 =Gm Þ
Weimer et al. [7] L=D ¼ 17:75ðBðq1 =qs Þ0:5 Þ
1
ðG0 =Gm Þ0:5
Chun et al. [2] L=D ¼ 0:5923B0:66 ðG0 =Gm Þ0:3444 2.5–10
Kim et al. [10] L=D ¼ 0:51B0:7 ðG0 =Gm Þ0:47 2.05–11.4 Straight-pipe nozzle
Wu et al. [8,12] L=D ¼ 0:597ðps =p1 Þ0:2 B0:8 ðG0 =Gm Þ0:5 2.86–14.6 Sonic and supersonic nozzle
L=D ¼ 0:868ðps =p1 Þ0:2 B0:6 ðG0 =Gm Þ0:5

length between different nozzle structures. Comparing Eq. (4) with

Eq. (8), conclusion can be obtained that the maximum expansion
ratio of ideal gas plume for orifice nozzle is obviously greater than
that of straight-pipe nozzle under the same mass flux. Then the jet
length of them should be shorter than the length of straight-pipe
nozzles according to Eq. (8) under the same mass flux.
To investigate the influence of b on the steam jet length and the
maximum expansion ratio, the ideal gas parameter on the nozzle
Fig. 1a. Sonic line and steam plume model for straight-pipe nozzle. outlet is investigated. According to Miller [29], the flow parameter
for each position can be calculated can be obtained as follows.
1 1 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sin l1 ¼ ; sin l2 ¼ ð5Þ
MAE M EC P
Ma number : Ma ¼ V= j ð9Þ
However, the sonic line of orifice nozzles is not vertical to the q
nozzle axial, and there is a velocity angle (b) which is defined as
The Mach number for each position in nozzle can be calculated
the angle between ideal gas flow direction and nozzle axial. So
based on the following equation.
the maximum expansion ratio of ideal gas plume for orifice must
! 2  3
be concerned with b. According to model shows in Fig. 1b, the max- 2 j1 2
imum expansion ratio would be corrected as Eq. (6). 1 1 1 j þ 1 4M1 1 þ 2 M2 5 4fl
 þ In ¼ ð10Þ
j M21 M22 2j M2 1 þ j1 M2 d
Rex sinða þ l1 Þ sinða þ b þ l2 Þ 2 2 1
¼ ð6Þ
D sinðl1  bÞ sin l2 Combining the Mach number, the pressure can be calculated
Then the ideal gas jet length is obtained as follow, based on Eq. (11).
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
L 1 sinða þ l1 þ l2 Þ cosða þ bÞ u
¼ ð7Þ P1 M 22 u 1 þ j1 M 22
D 2ð1  gÞ sinðl1  bÞ sin l2 ¼ 2t 2
ð11Þ
P2 M 1 1 þ j1 2
M 21
where g is the plume shape factor as defined by Kim et al. [31].
For Eq. (7), the plume shape factor is unknown and varies with With the temperature, pressure and the steam mass flux at the
the velocity angle, so it is hardly to be used for calculating the ideal nozzle inlet is measured by the experimental facility showed in
gas jet length. However, base on Eq. (7), the relationship of ideal Fig. 3, the stagnation pressure and Mach number at nozzle inlet
gas jet length between straight-pipe and orifice is obtained for is obtained. The back pressure in water is 0.101 MPa. The
the same mass flux, as shown in Eq. (8). Fanning friction factor is assumed to be 0.004, and then entrance
pressure loss and entrance resistance coefficient can be calculated.
L0  e 2 L Based on the parameters upon, the steam flow is choked at nozzle
¼ 0 þK ð8Þ
D e D outlet when steam mass flux is over 400 kgm2s1. So, Mach
2 1Þ cotðaÞðe02 1Þ cotðaþbÞ number of straight-pipe nozzle outlet is equal to 1. Combining
where K ¼ ðe 2e02 Eqs. (9)–(11), the pressure at nozzle outlet can be obtained.
L0
In Eq. (8), DL , D
are the dimensionless ideal gas jet length for Table 2 shows the nozzle outlet pressure of straight-pipe nozzle
0
straight-pipe and orifice nozzles, respectively. And e ¼ RDex ; e0 ¼ RDex under different mass flux.
are the maximum expansion ratio for straight-pipe and orifice noz- Then the varying of steam jet length and maximum expansion
zles, respectively. ratio with increasing of b is obtained, as shown in Fig. 2. It indicates
Although Eqs. (4)–(8) are deduced with a process of free jet and that with the increase of b; the maximum expansion ratio increases
no condensation, they are significance of explaining the difference rapidly, and steam jet length decreases greatly. Even only 4° the
of ideal gas plume maximum expansion ratio and ideal gas jet velocity angle is, 20% of the steam jet length will decrease.
Also, it is found that the value of K in Eq. (8) increases with the
rise of b, but even if the angle of b reaches to 15°, its proportion is
still less than 5%. So the Eq. (8) can be simplified as Eq. (12) when
the b is small, approximately.

L0  e 2 L
¼ 0 ð12Þ
D e D
Combined the condensation condition and the basic form pro-
posed by Kerney et al. [6] with Eq. (12), the steam jet length for dif-
ferent nozzle structures can be unified, which is significant to the
Fig. 1b. Sonic line and steam plume model for orifice nozzle. industry.
 D. Chong et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 64 (2015) 134–141
Table 2
Pressure at the nozzle outlet.
Steam mass flux Pressure at nozzle inlet, Pressure at nozzle outlet,
(kgm2s1) Pin (kPa) Pout (kPa)
500 370.0 173.0
600 427.8 203.2
700 514.6 237.3
800 603.6 267.4
3. Experimental results and discussions
To verify the theoretical analysis and Eq. (12), the experiment
with the two nozzles mentioned upon was conducted. Also, the
ratio of steam maximum expansion ratio between those two noz-
zles needs to be investigated before comparing the steam jet
length. Moreover, the maximum expansion ratio was measured
from the experiment.
3.1. Experimental apparatus
Fig. 3 shows experimental system diagram schematically. The
experimental apparatus of steam jet submerged in quiescent water
is similar with Qiu et al. [22]. In this experimental system, the flow
meter accuracy is 1.0% with the range of 22.53–469.51 kgh1. The
pressure sensor accuracy is 0.1% with the range of 0–1 MPa. T-type
thermocouple accuracy is 0.5 K. Finally, based on the method of
Moffat [32], the maximum uncertainty of steam mass rate, water
temperature, nozzle inlet steam pressure and steam temperature
are 6.24%, 3.50%, 1.83% and 0.22%, respectively.
The experiment was conducted under the condition of the
steam mass flux 400–800 kgm2s1 and water temperature 10–
70 °C. The saturated steam pressure at the main pipe ranges from
0.25–0.60 MPa. Two kinds of typical nozzles were tested in the
experiment, as shown in Fig. 4. For straight-pipe nozzle, the hole
is drilled through the whole nozzle with inner diameter of 8 mm.
For orifice nozzle, the main body is a pipe with sealed top, and
the inner diameter of pipe is 16 mm. Then a 8 mm hole is drilled
out at the top of pipe. It is noticeable that the diameter of main
steam pipe is 50 mm. And the pipe contracts to the nozzle inlet
abruptly. The nozzles are installed horizontally in square tank
and the steam is jetted horizontally from the hole. The submerged
depth is 500 mm for all nozzles. The machining error of nozzle dia-
meter is 1%, so the uncertainty analysis of steam mass flux can be
Fig. 2a. Influence of velocity angle on the maximum expansion ratio.
137
performed using the method of Moffat [32]. And the maximum
uncertainty of steam mass flux is 6.24% based on the uncertainty
of steam mass rate and nozzle diameter.
3.2. Measurement method of steam jet length
Steam jet length is usually obtained by measuring the plume
length from photographs directly or measuring and analyzing the
temperature along the steam jet direction. For the later method,
the tip of steam plume is hard to be determined for the reason that
flow field is disturbed [33]. In present paper, the former method
was adopted. The photograph of steam condensation was obtained
at a high speed of 5000 fps with a high speed camera, Phantom
V611. The jet length is defined as the length of steam plume core,
as shown in Fig. 5. The plume tail which is the steam clumps
separated from the steam plume core is not taken into account,
and the two phase mixture region is not measured as the steam
jet length. Because the steam plume varies continually, so the jet
length was obtained by measuring 20 continuous photos and tak-
ing an average. The deviation of average jet length is 25.2%,
approximately. The maximum uncertainty of steam jet length from
20 continuous photos is 5.0% when compared with the average jet
length of 60 continuous photos. The same method was also adopt-
ed by previous researchers (Kerney et al. [6], Chun et al. [2], Kim
et al. [10]). The average value of steam jet length is shown in
Fig. 6. The external diameter of nozzles was used as the standard
scale for measuring. In the same way, the maximum deviation of
average expansion ratio is 4.9%, and maximum uncertainty of max-
imum expansion ratio is 0.9% for the 20 continuous photos.
3.3. Experimental analysis for the effect of nozzle structure on the
steam jet length
With the measurement method of taking average, the steam jet
length is obtained under different steam mass flux and water tem-
perature. The result indicates that the steam dimensionless jet
length prolongs gradually with the rise of pool water temperature
and steam mass flux, which is similar to the previous result
(Kerney et al. [6] and Kim et al. [10]), as shown in Fig. 7.
Then the comparison for the steam jet length and maximum
expansion ratio with different nozzle structures is conducted, as
shown in Fig. 8. Clearly, it shows that the dimensionless jet length
and the maximum expansion ratio with different structures are
Fig. 2b. Influence of velocity angle on the steam jet length.
138 D. Chong et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 64 (2015) 134–141

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of experimental system.

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of two nozzles.

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of photo analysis.

quite different under the same steam mass flux and pool water The experimental result is well consistent to the theoretical
temperature. The jet length of straight-pipe nozzle is longer than analysis.
that of orifice nozzle, but the result of maximum expansion ratio As researched upon, the difference of steam jet length mainly
for the two structural nozzles is contrary to the steam jet length. contribute to the nozzle structure. For the straight-pipe, the steam
 D. Chong et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 64 (2015) 134–141 139

Fig. 8a. Comparison of steam jet lengths between different nozzle structures.

Fig. 6a. Steam plume photos.

Fig. 8b. Comparison of maximum expansion ratio between different nozzle

Fig. 6b. Average value of steam jet length. structures.

Fig. 7. Dimensionless steam jet length of straight-pipe nozzle versus pool water Fig. 9. Comparison of present experimental data with the predicted steam jet
temperature and steam mass flux. lengths.
140 D. Chong et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 64 (2015) 134–141
Fig. 10. Deviations of predicted jet lengths based on Kerney’s test data.
is jetted uniformly, so the maximum expansion ratio is relatively
small. To condense the steam under the same stem mass flux,
the steam jet length need prolong to increase the heat transfer
area. But for the orifice nozzles, the velocity distribution of steam
jets is not uniform at nozzle exit because of their special structure.
There is a velocity angle when the steam jet from the nozzle. In this
study, the sharp edge is applied and there is an obvious velocity
angle. So its maximum expansion ratio is bigger than the
straight-pipe nozzle’s. Naturally, the steam jet length of orifice
nozzle is smaller.
Although the correlation of steam jet length is obtained in Eq.
(7), it cannot be used directly for the plume shape factor in Eq.
(7) is hard to obtain. So, base on the experimental result, a correla-
tion of dimensionless steam jet length for the straight-pipe is
obtained based on the basic form proposed by Kerney et al. [6],
as shown in Eq. (13).
 0:78
L G0
¼ 0:3866B0:80
D Gm
Fig. 9 shows the comparison of dimensionless jet length
between predicted results and experiment data for straight-pipe
nozzle. The discrepancy is in a range from 15% to 15% under test
condition.
Also, the contrast of Eq. (13) and previous data is made, as
shown in Fig. 10. The discrepancy between Eq. (13) and the
experimental data of Kerney et al. [6] ranges from 23% to 30%,
and it is approximately equal to the discrepancy of Kerney’s corre-
lation. All the results indicates that Eq. (13) can predict the steam
jet length well for straight-pipe nozzle.
According to experimental result, there is big difference for the
steam jet length under different nozzle structures. Base on the Eqs.
(12) and (13), the steam jet length correlation for different nozzle
structures can be expressed as follows:
 0:78
L0  e 2 L  e 2 G0
¼ 0 ¼ 0:3866 0 B0:80
D e D e Gm
The ee0 can be obtained by comparing the maximum expansion
ratio with different nozzle structures. In this paper, ratio of the
maximum expansion ratio of straight-pipe nozzle and orifice noz-
zle, ee0 ; is equal to 0.925 which is obtained from the experimental
data. Fig. 11 shows the predicted length by Eq. (14) for both two
structural nozzles. The good consistency between the predicted
length and the experimental data illustrates Eq. (14) is accurate
Fig. 11. Predicted length by Eq. (14) for different nozzle structures.
enough for different nozzle structures. And the proposed model
could predict the experimental jet length with an error of ±15%
under the test condition. Also Eq. (14) is used to predict the steam
jet length reported by previous researchers [6,10]. For the condi-
tion that the steam mass flux ranges from 400–800 kgm2s1
and the pool water temperature is within 10–70 °C, the discrepan-
cy is within ±25%.
4. Conclusions
The difference of steam jet lengths with different nozzle struc-
tures in quiescent water is investigated theoretically and
experimentally. Based on the expansion and compression wave
theory, the difference between different nozzle structures is ana-
lyzed. Then the theoretical conclusion is tested and confirmed by
the experimental results. And the experimental results agree well
with theoretical analysis for steam mass flux ranging from 400–
800 kgm2s1 and water temperature is between 10 and 70 °C.
ð13Þ
The results can be mainly summarized as follows:
(1) A theoretical model is proposed to predict and compare the
jet lengths of different structural nozzles based on the
expansion and compression wave theory, and the result
shows that the nozzle structure has a great influence on
the steam jet length.
(2) Experimental results verify the conclusion of theoretical mod-
el that the dimensionless steam jet lengths for different nozzle
structures are quite different. And the dimensionless jet
length of straight-pipe nozzle is longer than that of orifice
nozzle under the same pool temperature and steam mass flux.
(3) A universal semi-empirical correlation for different nozzle
structures is proposed when the experimental data is com-
bined with the theoretical result. The results show that the
predicted length corresponds to the experimental data very
well for the different nozzle structures and the discrepancy
ð14Þ is within ±25% for steam mass flux between 400–
800 kgm2s1 and water temperature between 10–70 °C.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of
China (No. 51476128, and No. 51125027), Program for New
Century Excellent Talents in University (No. NCET-2012-0448).
 D. Chong et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 64 (2015) 134–141 141

References [17] S. Cho, S. Chun, W. Baek, Y. Kim, Effect of multiple holes on the performance of
sparger during direct contact condensation of steam, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 28
(6) (2004) 629–638.
[1] C.K. Chan, C. Lee, A regime map for direct contact condensation, Int. J. Multiph.
[18] B. Qiu, S. Tang, J. Yan, J. Liu, D. Chong, X. Wu, Experimental investigation on
Flow 8 (1) (1982) 11–20.
pressure oscillations caused by direct contact condensation of sonic steam jet,
[2] M. Chun, Y. Kim, J. Park, An investigation of direct condensation of steam jet in
Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 52 (2014) 270–277.
subcooled water, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 23 (7) (1996) 947–958.
[19] A. Shah, I.R. Chughtai, M.H. Inayat, Numerical simulation of direct-contact
[3] S. Cho, C.H. Song, C.K. Park, S.K. Yang, M.K. Chung, Experimental study on
condensation from a supersonic steam jet in subcooled water, Chin. J. Chem.
dynamic pressure pulse in direct contact condensation of steam discharging
Eng. 18 (4) (2010) 577–587.
into subcooled water, in: The 1st Korea–Japan Symposium on Nuclear Thermal
[20] S.J. Hong, G.C. Park, S. Cho, C. Song, Condensation dynamics of submerged
Hydraulics and Safety, Pusan, Korea, 1998, pp. 291–298.
steam jet in subcooled water, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 39 (2012) 66–77.
[4] A Petrovic De With, R.K. Calay, G. de With, Three-dimensional condensation
[21] B. Qiu, J. Yan, J. Liu, D. Chong, Experimental investigation on pressure
regime diagram for direct contact condensation of steam injected into water,
oscillation frequency for submerged sonic/supersonic steam jet, Ann. Nucl.
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 50 (9) (2007) 1762–1770.
Energy 75 (2015) 388–394.
[5] X. Wu, J. Yan, D. Pan, G. Liu, W. Li, Condensation regime diagram for
[22] B. Qiu, J. Yan, J. Liu, D. Chong, Q. Zhao, X. Wu, Experimental investigation on
supersonic/sonic steam jet in subcooled water, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239 (12) (2009)
the second dominant frequency of pressure oscillation for sonic steam jet in
3142–3150.
subcooled water, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 58 (2014) 131–138.
[6] P.J. Kerney, G.M. Faeth, D.R. Olson, Penetration characteristics of a submerged
[23] G. Del Tin, E. Lavagno, M. Malandrone, Thermal and fluid-dynamic features of
steam jet, AIChE J. 18 (3) (1972) 548–553.
vapor condensing jets, Heat Tech 1 (1) (1983) 13–35.
[7] J.C. Weimer, G.M. Faeth, D.R. Olson, Penetration of vapor jets submerged in
[24] J. Yan, X. Wu, D. Chong, Experimental study on pressure and temperature
subcooled liquids, AIChE J. 19 (3) (1973) 552–558.
distributions for low mass flux steam jet in subcooled water, Sci. China Ser. E-
[8] X. Wu, J. Yan, S. Shao, Y. Cao, J. Liu, Experimental study on the condensation of
Technol. Sci. 52 (6) (2009) 1493–1501.
supersonic steam jet submerged in quiescent subcooled water: steam plume
[25] A. Shah, I.R. Chughtai, M.H. Inayat, Experimental study of the characteristics of
shape and heat transfer, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 33 (12) (2007) 1296–1307.
steam jet pump and effect of mixing section length on direct-contact
[9] S.S. Gulawani, J.B. Joshi, M.S. Shah, C.S. RamaPrasad, D.S. Shukla, CFD analysis
condensation, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 58 (1–2) (2013) 62–69.
of flow pattern and heat transfer in direct contact steam condensation, Chem.
[26] B. Deckker, Y.F. Chang, Paper 7: An Investigation of Steady Compressible Flow
Eng. Sci. 61 (16) (2006) 5204–5220.
through Thick Orifices, in: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
[10] H.Y. Kim, Y.Y. Bae, C.H. Song, J.K. Park, S.M. Choi, Experimental study on stable
Engineers, vol. 180, 1965, pp. 312–323.
steam condensation in a quenching tank, Int. J. Energy Res. 25 (3) (2001) 239–
[27] Y. Liu, B. Zhu, Y. Zhu, Z. Li, Flow and cavitation characteristics of a damping
252.
orifice in water hydraulics, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part A: J. Pow. Energy 220 (8)
[11] A. Petrovic, Analytical study of flow regimes for direct contact condensation
(2006) 933–942.
based on parametrical investigation: ASME/JSME 2004 pressure vessels and
[28] C. Song, Y. Kim, Direct contact condensation of steam jet in a pool, Adv. Heat
piping conference, 2004, 127, pp. 20–25.
Transfer 43 (2011) 227–231.
[12] X. Wu, J. Yan, W. Li, D. Pan, D. Chong, Experimental study on sonic steam jet
[29] D.S. Miller, Internal Flow System, BHRA, Milton Keynes, 1990.
condensation in quiescent subcooled water, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (23) (2009)
[30] L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Statistical physics, Course of Theoretical Physics, vol.
5002–5012.
5, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1980.
[13] Q. Xu, L. Guo, S. Zou, J. Chen, X. Zhang, Experimental study on direct contact
[31] Y. Kim, J. Park, C. Song, Investigation of the stem-water direct contact
condensation of stable steam jet in water flow in a vertical pipe, Int. J. Heat
condensation heat transfer coefficients using interfacial transport models, Int.
Mass Transf. 66 (2013) 808–817.
Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 31 (3) (2004) 397–408.
[14] S.S. Gulawani, S.K. Dahikar, C.S. Mathpati, J.B. Joshi, M.S. Shah, C.S. RamaPrasad,
[32] R.J. Moffat, Contributions to the theory of single-sample uncertainty analysis, J.
D.S. Shukla, Analysis of flow pattern and heat transfer in direct contact
Fluids Eng. 104 (1982) 250–258.
condensation, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (8) (2009) 1719–1738.
[33] G. Del Tin, E. Lavagno, M. Malandrone, Pressure and temperature
[15] M.E. Simpson, C.K. Chan, Hydrodynamics of a subsonic vapor jet in subcooled
measurements in vapor condensing jets, in: Proceedings of the 7th
liquid, J. Heat Transfer 104 (2) (1982) 271–278.
International Heat Transfer Conference, Munchen, 1982, pp. 159–164.
[16] D.H. Youn, K.B. Ko, Y.Y. Lee, M.H. Kim, Y.Y. Bae, J.K. Park, The direct contact
condensation of steam in a pool at low mass flux, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 40 (10)
(2003) 881–885.