International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

Two-dimensional flow modelling of a thin slice kettle reboiler

D.A. McNeil ⇑, K. Bamardouf, B.M. Burnside
Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK

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

Article history: The two-fluid model is applied to a thin sliced kettle reboiler. The tube bundle is treated as a porous med-
Received 17 February 2010 ium in which the drag coefficient and tube-wall force are deduced from the empirically-based, one-
Received in revised form 7 January 2011 dimensional model. Methods available in the open literature are used in the two-phase pool surrounding
Accepted 11 January 2011
the tube bundle. The predictions are verified by comparing them with experimental data and models
Available online 14 February 2011
available in the open literature.
The boundary condition applied at the free surface of the pool is found to be crucial in determining the
Keywords:
flow pattern within it. When only liquid re-enters through the boundary an all-liquid pool results. Com-
Two-phase flow
Boiling
parison with the experimental evidence suggests that this boundary condition corresponds to bubbly
Two-fluid model flow within the tube bundle. Allowing a predominantly vapour re-entry produces a two-phase pool that
Kettle reboiler is consistent with intermittent flow in the tube bundle. When the appropriate boundary condition is
applied, the two-fluid model predictions are shown to reproduce the visual records and pressure drop
measurements reasonably accurately.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The kettle reboiler is one of the most commonly used shell and
tube heat exchangers in the process industry and consists of a tube
bundle placed in a shell, Fig. 1. The liquid level above the tube bun-
dle is set by the weir. The heating fluid flows inside the tubes while
the heated fluid boils on the outside surfaces of the tubes. The dif-
ference in densities between the two-phase mixture flowing with-
in the tube bundle and the liquid flowing between the tube bundle
and the shell wall causes natural circulation to occur. The circula-
tion flow rate is needed in the estimation of the local heat-transfer
coefficient and has been found from several modelling approaches.
The simplest approach available is the one-dimensional model,
see for example Brisbane et al. [1] or Jensen [2]. This model as-
sumes that liquid enters each column of the tube bundle from
the bottom and evaporates as it moves vertically upwards. The
two-phase pressure drop in a column is assumed to balance with
its static head of liquid. This is based on reasonably static liquid
being present between the tube bundle and the shell wall. The
two-phase pressure drop has gravity, acceleration and friction
components. A void fraction and a two-phase friction multiplier
correlation are therefore required to complete the model. For con-
ditions typical of kettle reboilers, Bamardouf and McNeil [3] have
shown that the void fraction correlation of Feenstra et al. [4] and
the two-phase multiplier correlations of Ishihara et al. [5] give
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: D.A.McNeil@hw.ac.uk (D.A. McNeil).
the best agreement with the available experimental data, which
was mostly obtained from one-dimensional flow experiments.
The two-phase multiplier approach requires the liquid only pres-
sure drop to be found. ESDU [6] was used by Bamardouf and
McNeil [3]. Burnside et al. [7] has shown that the one-dimensional
model is only consistent with its inherent assumptions at heat
fluxes lower than 20 kW/m2.
Attempts to model the two-dimensional flow have been made
using the algebraic slip, or one-fluid, model and the two-fluid mod-
el. The one-fluid model assumes that the two phases move in the
same direction with different phase velocities and was used by
Burnside [8] and McNeil et al. [9]. This model also requires corre-
lations for void fraction and tube bundle flow resistance. One-fluid
models have been used to model flow within tube bundles and
therefore required the pressure distribution around them to be
specified. The two-fluid model uses conservation equations for
mass, momentum and energy for each phase. These are solved to-
gether with closure equations that describe the interaction be-
tween the phases and between the phases and the tubes in the
tube bundle. This model has been used to model flow in the tube
bundle and in the shell.
Burnside [8] applied the one-fluid model, with the static liquid
boundary condition, to a square shaped tube bundle. The static li-
quid boundary condition is appropriate when the tube bundle is
surrounded by static, or slowly moving, liquid. Under these cir-
cumstances, the pressure distribution within the tube bundle is
only a slight modification to the static liquid distribution surround-
ing it. Consequently, the predicted pressure distributions were
incompatible with the measured values of Burnside et al. [7] and

0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2011.01.012
1908 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923
Vapour Vapour
outlet outlet
Liquid
recirculation Weir Tube Baffles
bundle
Liquid Liquid
inlet outlet
Fig. 1. Typical kettle reboiler.
McNeil et al. [10], where significant deviations from the static li-
quid pressure distributions were reported for heat fluxes greater
than 20 kW/m2. McNeil et al. [9] applied the one-fluid model, with
the static liquid boundary condition, to an octagonal shaped tube
bundle and showed that it corresponded to the bubbly flow re-
gime. For the intermittent flow regime, the boundary pressures
had to be calculated from the flow pattern transition conditions.
The transition from bubbly to intermittent flow was deduced to oc-
cur at a critical Kutateladze number. This model was compatible
with the measured pressure distributions of McNeil et al. [10].
Edwards and Jensen [11] produced a two-dimensional model of
a kettle reboiler using the two-fluid approach. They assumed a
constant drag coefficient for the whole flow field. The value used
allowed the experimental void fraction results to be approached,
but convergence problems appeared when they got to within
30% of the experimental values. Rahman et al. [12] were the first
to deduce the interfacial drag force from data taken for vertical
two-phase flow across a horizontal tube bundle. A correlation for
the drag coefficient was developed from the air–water data of
Schrage et al. [13] and Dowlati et al. [14,15]. They assumed that
the resistance between the tube walls and the gas, or vapour, flow
was negligible, arguing that only the liquid phase was in contact
with the tubes in the tube bundle. The drag coefficient was corre-
lated as a power law function of the Reynolds number. Stosic and
Stevanovic [16], Stevanovic et al. [17,18] and Pezo et al. [19] pro-
posed two correlations for the drag coefficient, one for the bubbly
flow regime and another for the churn flow regime. They derived
their coefficients from the air–water measurements reported by
a: Kettle reboiler boiling R113 at a heat flux
2
of 10 kW/ m
Fig. 2. Front view and tube layout of a kettle reboiler.
Dowlati et al. [14,15,20]. The details are given in Simovic et al.
[21]. The two-fluid model, with these drag coefficient correlations,
Hot
fluid was used to model boiling flows in horizontal steam generators
inlet and kettle reboilers. Bamardouf and McNeil [3] have shown that
this approach does not reduce to the empirically-based, one-
dimensional model and is therefore unlikely to accurately predict
two-dimensional flows.
Flows within kettle reboilers are complex. Experimental inves-
tigations, see for example McNeil et al. [10], have found that two
flow regimes exist. At low heat fluxes the flow travels vertically
upwards, while at higher heat fluxes the fluid initially travels
Liquid Hot upwards before obtaining a significant horizontal component.
inlet fluid
McNeil et al. [10] attributed this change in flow behaviour to a
outlet
change in flow pattern from bubbly to intermittent flow. This tran-
sition was shown to be controlled by the fluid dynamics within the
tube bundle and to be independent of the fluid flow out with it. To
date, the one-fluid model of McNeil et al. [9] is the only model that
can reproduce the available experimental evidence. Models of this
type are difficult to use as they are problem specific and need to be
coded for each application. Thus, an Eulerian-Eulerian, two-fluid
model is desirable, as this can be based on commercially available
software. The aim of this study is therefore to deduce the parame-
ters required to implement a two-fluid model of a kettle reboiler
that reproduces the available experimental evidence. This will
require:
(a) The model to reduce to the one-dimensional model in one-
dimensional circumstances.
(b) A drag coefficient to be identified for the tube bundle.
(c) The force on the fluid by the tube bundle to be specified.
(d) A drag coefficient for the pool to be identified.
(e) Appropriate boundary conditions to be set.
(f) A mechanism to ensure that the tube bundle flows are in the
correct flow regime.
Investigating all of the variations possible to meet these objec-
tives required many simulations to be made. Only the results
needed to demonstrate the conclusions are reported.
2. Problem description and boundary conditions
A front view of the kettle reboiler is shown in Fig. 2. The kettle is
heated by a constant heat flux on the tube surfaces. Saturated li-
quid within the tube bundle evaporates to produce a two-phase
n
Row 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 column
w e 17
16
s
15
14
13
12
11
10
pressure
inlet tappings
b: Tube and pressure tap distribution
 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923 1909

mixture. The mixture has a lower density than the liquid in the where hfg is the enthalpy of evaporation of the fluid. This vapour
pool surrounding it and thus rises. At the top of the tube bundle flow rate exits through the north boundary. The magnitude of the
a foam-like region is evident. Within this region the vapour sepa- liquid mass flow rate entering through the south boundary is there-
rates from the liquid and passes through the exit port to the con- fore also given by Eq. (1). The uniform heat flux boundary condition
denser, while the liquid cascades along the top of the pool before was applied by having the phase change in the tube bundle occur at
entering it somewhere between the tube bundle and the shell wall. a constant mass flow of vapour per unit volume of domain. The rate
This liquid flows down into the liquid pool and re-enters the tube was found as the ratio of the mass flow rate given by Eq. (1) to the
bundle. The separated vapour is condensed in a condenser before tube bundle sub-domain volume. The vapour entered the tube bun-
being re-heated to the saturation temperature in a pre-heater dle sub-domain with zero velocity from a mass source. An equal and
and returned to the shell through tubes near the centre of the tube opposite mass sink was applied to the liquid phase. The force be-
bundle base. tween the phases due to phase change was neglected.
The flow shown in Fig. 2(a) is clearly two-dimensional. Deter- The tube bundle region of the domain was modelled as a porous
mining the heat transfer rates within it will require the distribu- sub-domain. The volume of the sub-domain consisted of a solid
tion of liquid and vapour mass fluxes to be reasonably accurately fraction, es, a liquid fraction, eL, and a gas fraction, eg, so that the to-
predicted. The flow resistance is overwhelmingly within the tube tal volume fraction was:
bundle. Therefore predicting this mass flux distribution will re-
es þ eL þ eg ¼ 1: ð2Þ
quire the model to characterise the tube bundle flow resistance
accurately and to reproduce the pressure distribution around it The volume fraction available for flow, i.e. the porosity, /, was
reasonably well. The latter will require the correct flow regime to
/ ¼ eg þ eL ¼ 1  es : ð3Þ
be implemented.
From a modelling perspective, there are three regions to con- The porosity of the square in-line tube bundle analysed in this study
sider, the tube bundle, the pool between the tube bundle and the was obtained from:
shell wall and the separation region above the tube bundle. The  2
modelling of each region will need to be investigated. However, p D
/¼1 ð4Þ
they form a single flow domain that has one set of boundary con- 4 P
ditions. The kettle is a thin slice of a typical boiler. It is only 56 mm
where P is the tube pitch, with the volume fraction of the gas phase,
deep and therefore only represents what occurs in a cross-section
ag, and of the liquid phase, aL, given by
of a boiler. It is therefore modelled as two-dimensional. The do-
main is symmetrical, with the symmetrical half shown in eg eL
ag ¼ and aL ¼ ð5Þ
Fig. 2(b) selected for analysis. The west face is therefore a symme- / /
try plane boundary. The east face is a smooth wall for which no slip In this sub-domain, mass conservation of the vapour phase gives:
is applied to both phases. The south boundary is an all-liquid inlet.
The north face is difficult to specify. On this face the pressure is o   o   M
eg qg ug þ eg qg v g ¼ g ð6Þ
atmospheric. However, the shape is irregular, with vapour exiting ox oy V
and liquid exiting and re-entering through it. Previous studies have
where ug and vg are the horizontal and vertical velocity components
treated this boundary differently. Rahman et al. [12] used a hori-
of the vapour phase, V is the volume of the porous sub-domain and
zontal plane boundary where fluid exited at constant pressure,
qg is the density of the vapour phase. The momentum equations for
arguing that this represented what was set by the weir, Fig. 1. Pezo
the vapour phase are given by
et al. [19] also used this constant pressure boundary condition.  
Additionally they used a boundary condition that ignored the pres- oug oug oug op
eg qg þ ug þ vg ¼ eg þ F xLg þ F xsg ; ð7Þ
sure and set the liquid vertical velocity, the vapour vertical velocity ot ox oy ox
gradient and the liquid and vapour horizontal velocity gradients to
and
zero. Any fluid re-entering through this boundary was assumed to
 
be vapour. They claimed that the latter boundary condition gave ov g ov g ov g op
better results, numerical values were not used to substantiate this. eg qg þ ug þ vg ¼ eg qg g  eg þ F yLg þ F ysg ; ð8Þ
ot ox oy oy
What is proposed in this study is, in effect, a combination of these
approaches. The boundary is isobaric. However, fluid is allowed to where p is the pressure, g is the acceleration due to gravity, Fsg is the
exit and, if necessary, re-enter through it. Flow exiting through this force on the vapour by the tubes per unit volume of domain, with
boundary is computed by the isobaric boundary condition. If flow superscripts x and y indicating the force components in the x and
re-enters, the vertical velocity is set by imposing a zero vertical y directions respectively, and FLg is the interfacial drag force per unit
velocity gradient on the appropriate phase. The magnitude of any volume of domain, which, see for example Bamardouf and McNeil
flow re-entering is controlled by setting its volume fraction. Con- [3], can be expressed as
trolling the magnitude of the mass flow re-entering the domain of- 3 ctb   
 
fers a mechanism for imposing a flow pattern. How to implement F Lg ¼  /qL ag D ~ Sg  ~
SL ~Sg  ~
SL ; ð9Þ
4 DB
this will need to be investigated.
in which DB is the bubble diameter, qL is the density of the liquid
3. Modelling parameters for the tube bundle phase, ctbD is the drag coefficient in the tube bundle region and sg
and sL are the vector sums of the horizontal and vertical velocity
The tube bundle contains N tubes to which a uniform heat flux q components of the vapour and liquid phases respectively.Mass con-
is applied. The tubes have an outside diameter D and a length L. servation of the liquid phase gives:
Since the liquid is everywhere saturated, Mg, the mass flow rate o o Mg
of vapour generated within the tube bundle, can be calculated ðeL qL uL Þ þ ðeL qL v L Þ ¼  ; ð10Þ
ox oy V
from:
where uL and vL are the horizontal and vertical velocity compo-
NpDLq nents of the liquid phase. The momentum equations for the
Mg ¼ ; ð1Þ
hfg liquid phase are
1910 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923

 
ouL ouL ouL op rapidly become fully developed, a simplification that allowed the
eL qL þ uL þ vL ¼ eL þ F xgL þ F xsL ; ð11Þ
ot ox oy ox drag coefficient to be deduced from void fraction and pressure drop
measurements. A more general approach is to base the drag coeffi-
and
cient on the best empirical information available. The approach that
 
ov L ov L ov L op they took is consistent with using the one-dimensional model to
eL qL þ uL þ vL ¼ eL qL g  eL þ F ygL þ F ysL ; ð12Þ
ot ox oy oy deduce the interfacial drag coefficient. This is the approach taken
here.
where FsL is the force on the liquid by the tubes per unit volume of The momentum equation for a fully-developed vertical flow is
domain and FgL is equal and opposite to the interfacial drag force. It obtained for the one-dimensional model by combining gas and li-
should be noted that the flow resistance forces caused by the tubes quid Eqs. (8) and (12) to give:
are very much larger than the shear forces in the fluid.To model the
flow within the tube bundle, the force on the vapour by the tubes, op 1 y 
¼ qtp g þ F sL þ F ysg ð20Þ
the interfacial drag force and the force on the liquid by the tubes oy /
need to be evaluated.
For kettle reboilers, Barmadouf and McNeil [3] suggested that the
force on the fluid by the tubes is best found through the two-phase
3.1. The force on the vapour by the tubes
multiplier correlation of Ishihara et al. [5]. With the force on the va-
pour by the tubes neglected, the force on the liquid by the tubes
In a boiling flow, as argued by Rahman et al. [12], the vapour
was found from:
phase is not in contact with the tubes to any significant extent.
The force on the vapour by the tubes is therefore negligible. fL
F sL ¼ q j2 /2 ð21Þ
2 L lo L
3.2. The drag force in the tube bundle
where jlo is the liquid velocity when only the liquid fraction flows in
an unrestricted flow area, fL is the bundle friction factor found under
The interfacial drag force requires a drag coefficient and a bub-
similar conditions and determined from the ESDU [6], and /2L is the
ble diameter to be specified, Eq. (9). Rahman et al. [12] and Simovic
two-phase multiplier, given by
et al. [21], have deduced drag coefficients from measurements
made in one-dimensional air–water flows. Rahman et al. [12] used 8 1
/2L ¼ 1 þ þ ; ð22Þ
a different definition from that used here. Their drag coefficient is X tt X 2tt
converted to the current definition through:
in which {tt is the Martinelli parameter, given by
2 qtp DB R !0:1
ctb ¼ c ; ð13Þ  0:9  0:5
D
3 qL /P D 1z qg lL
X tt ¼ ; ð23Þ
where qtp is the two-phase density, given by
z qL lg
qtp ¼ ag qg þ aL qL ð14Þ with lg being the viscosity of the vapour phase and z the gas-mass
fraction.
and cRD is the Rahman et al. [12] value, given by For kettle reboilers, Barmadouf and McNeil [3] also suggested
cD bubbly cD intermittent that the slip ratio, S, should be found from the Feenstra et al. [4]
cRD ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ð15Þ
correlation:
4
c4D bubbly þ c4D internittent
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi D
in which S ¼ 1 þ 25:7 RiCa ; ð24Þ
P
e33:49 /3:49 e19:91 /1:63 where Ca is the capillary number, given by
C D bubbly ¼ ; cD intermittent ¼ and
Re3:68
R ReR2:10 lL jg max
 
Ca ¼ ð25Þ
qtp /P~Sg  ~SL  r
;
ReR ¼ ; ð16Þ
lL and Ri is the Richardson number, defined as
with lL being the viscosity of the liquid phase.  2 gðP  DÞ
Ri ¼ qL  qg : ð26Þ
The drag coefficient presented by Simovic et al. [21] also had a m2max
two flow pattern approach. The distorted bubble regime value was
given by The maximum mass flux, mmax, was found from the total mass flow
!2 rate of vapour and liquid between a column of tubes, M, and the
 0:5 9=7
g Dq 1 þ 17:67aL minimum flow area in the column, i.e.
cD intermittent ¼ 0:267DB ð17Þ
r 18:67aL3=2 MP
mmax ¼ ð27Þ
ðP  DÞL
and the churn flow regime value by
 0:5 This allowed the maximum gas velocity, jgmax, to be found from:
g Dq
cD churn ¼ 1:487DB a3L ð1  0:75ag Þ2 ð18Þ zmmax
r jg max ¼ ð28Þ
ag qg
where r is the surface tension of the liquid phase and Dq is the den-
sity difference, given by The gas volume fraction, or void fraction, was thereafter found
from:
Dq ¼ qL  qg ð19Þ
zqL
Rahman et al. [12] and Simovic et al. [21] deduced their drag coef- ag ¼ ; ð29Þ
ðzqL þ Sð1  zÞqg Þ
ficients from measurements made in one-dimensional air–water
flows. They argued that, in practice, these one-dimensional flows which is an iterative procedure.
 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923 1911

The fully-developed, one-dimensional, momentum equation for gðqL  qg ÞD2B

the gas phase follows from two-fluid model Eq. (8) as
op
eg ¼ eg qg g þ F yLg þ F ysg
oy
With the force on the vapour by the tubes neglected and the pres-
sure gradient and void fraction found from the one-dimensional
model, Eq. (30) allows the drag force to be determined. For a
fully-developed, one-dimensional flow, the drag force can be re-
lated to the drag coefficient through the one-dimensional form of
Eq. (9), i.e.
3 C tb 
F gL ¼ /qL ag D v g  v l jv g  v L j:
4 DB
Eq. (31) allows the ratio of the drag coefficient to the bubble diam-
eter to be found. This is convenient since it is this ratio that is re-
quired to describe the interfacial drag force, Eq. (9). This approach
was used to obtain drag coefficients for air–water and R113 flows.
The mass fluxes were obtained at a specified gas-mass fraction for
a static liquid pressure drop across a tube, similar to the approach
of the one-dimensional model. The tube bundle was assumed to
have a square, in-line layout with a pitch of 25.4 mm and a tube
diameter of 19 mm, the same as the tube bundle shown in Fig. 2.
The R113 data were obtained at atmospheric pressure. The air–
water data were obtained at atmospheric temperature and pres-
sure. The values obtained are compared to the methods of Rahman
et al. [12] and Simovic et al. [21] in Fig. 3, where the drag group is
the ratio of the drag coefficient to the square root of the Eotvos
number, Eo, defined by
Eo ¼ ð32Þ
r
The Rahman et al. [12] method agrees very well with the air–water
ð30Þ
results, while the Simovic et al. [21] method agrees reasonably well,
Fig. 3a. This is not surprising since the same air–water data were
used in the formulation of these methods and of the Feenstra
et al. [4] slip ratio. The comparison of both methods with the
R113 data is extremely poor, Fig. 3(b). Notice that the Rahman et
al. [12] values for R113 in Fig. 3(b) were obtained using drag coef-
ficients 100 times larger than those obtained from their correlation.
The drag coefficients derived from the one-dimensional model are
more likely to be reliable since the Feenstra et al. [4] correlation
ð31Þ used air–water, R11, steam-water and R113 data in its formulation
and verification. For the simulations that follow, the R113 drag coef-
ficients presented in Fig. 3 were well correlated by
C tb
D ¼ 1  10
4
pffiffiffiffiffi 
 Eo 1:227  2:212ag þ 19:37a2g  32:37a3g þ 14:84a4g e6:595ð1ag Þ
ð33Þ
This equation is included in Fig. 3(b).
3.3. The force on the liquid by the tubes
In the tube bundle region, the dominant resistance to flow is
provided by the tubes. Previous investigations have modelled the
force on the tubes by the fluid in different ways. For example,
Pezo et al. [19] used single-phase pressure drops for the gas and li-
quid components weighted by volume fraction. Experimental

1.0000 1.0000

0.1000 0.1000
Drag group (-)

Drag group (-)

0.0100 0.0100

R113 drag group

air-water drag group
0.0010 0.0010 R113 Stevanovic
air-water Stevanovic
R113 100*Rahman
air-water Rahman Equation (32)
0.0001 0.0001
0.01 0.10 1.00 0.01 0.10 1.00
Void fraction (-) Void fraction (-)
a: Air-water b: R113

Fig. 3. Variation of drag group with void fraction.

Fig. 4. Meshes used in simulation.

1912 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923

investigations have led to correlations like Eq. (22). This correlation
includes the gas and liquid component and a gas-liquid interaction
component. One of the objectives of this study is to produce a mod-
el that replicates the one-dimensional model, described in Section
3.1, under one-dimensional circumstances. Thus, the flow resis-
tance presented by the tubes was modelled as a variant of the
one-dimensional approach described by Eqs. (21)–(23), i.e. the
tube wall resistance was input as a momentum loss term using a
modified version of the Ishihara et al. [5] method. This one-dimen-
sional approach was modified by assuming that the force on the li-
quid by the tubes was in the direction of the liquid velocity vector
and that two-phase multiplication resulted from the vapour veloc-
ity component in the liquid velocity direction. The force on the li-
quid by the tubes was determined from Eq. (21), with the two-
dimensional liquid only velocity used in force Eq. (21) and in the
ESDU [6] Reynolds number. The gas mass fraction in Eq. (23) was
determined from:
ag qg sg cos h
z¼
ðag qg sg cos h þ aL qL sL Þ
where h is the angle between the vapour and liquid velocity vectors
and was given by
h ¼ jhg  hL j; ð35Þ
in which hg and hL are the angles of the vapour and liquid velocity
vectors relative to the x-axis, i.e.
   
vg vL
hg ¼ tan1 and hL ¼ tan1 : ð36Þ
ug uL
This approach, along with the method used to generate the tube
bundle drag coefficient, Eq. (33), guarantees that the one-dimen-
sional model is recovered for one-dimensional flows, and, as this
model is in reasonable agreement with most of the available exper-
imental data, it is an approach that is likely to succeed for most
commonly used fluids and tube bundle layouts.
4. The pool
The pool was treated as a fluid domain. In this domain there
was no mass transfer between the phases. Thus, the mass conser-
vation equations were similar to Eqs. (6) and (10) with Mg set to
ð34Þ
zero. Momentum Eqs. (7), (8), (11) and (12) were modified by set-
ting the porosity to unity and replacing the forces on the fluid by
the tubes with the viscous forces, which were found from the
homogeneous turbulence approach. The k–e turbulence model

Fig. 5. High fluid level void fraction distributions at a heat flux of 10 kW/m2.

Fig. 6. Low fluid level void fraction distributions at a heat flux of 10 kW/m2.
 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923 1913

 
was used with turbulence enhancement given by the method of l4L g qL  qg
Sato and Sekoguchi [22]. Two drag coefficients were used in the Mo ¼ ; ð38Þ
pool, one due to Ishii and Zuber [23] and one due to Grace and
q2L r3
co-workers, as described in Clift et al. [24]. and J is a parameter defined through:
The Ishii–Zuber [23] correlation requires the bubble diameter to
be set. Bubble sizes compatible with the distorted and cap bubble J ¼ 0:94H0:751 2 < H < 59:5 or J ¼ 3:42H0:441 H > 59:5 ð39Þ
regimes were used. The distorted bubble regime predictions dis-
in which H is a parameter defined as:
agreed with the available experimental evidence in magnitude

and trend. The cap bubble regime predictions disagreed in magni- 4 Eo lref 0:14
tude but agreed in trend. However, the Grace and co-workers H¼ : ð40Þ
3 Mo0:149 lL
method [24] agreed in magnitude and trend and is therefore the
preferred method. The Grace and co-workers [24] correlation was The reference viscosity, lref, was 0.0009 Ns/m2. This terminal veloc-
deduced for the distorted bubble regime. The ratio of the drag coef- ity was converted to a drag coefficient in the two-phase pool by
ficient to the bubble diameter, the quantity appearing in Eq. (9), is using:
therefore reasonably constant for various bubble sizes. A bubble
4 gDB ðqL  qg ÞanL
diameter of 1 mm was used, although clearly the solution is rea- cpl
D ¼ ; ð41Þ
sonably independent on this value.
3 qL v 2t
The Grace and co-workers [24] method finds the terminal veloc- where the power law liquid volume fraction term corrects for the
ity, vt, for a single bubble through: presence of other bubbles. Corrections of this type have used indi-
lL ðJ  0:852Þ ces between 0.5 and 4, For example, for air-lift reactors, Lo et al.
vt ¼ ð37Þ [25] used 4. Multiple simulations of the kettle reboiler revealed that
qL DB Mo0:149
the best value for this application was 3. This was used for all of the
where Mo is the Morton number, given by simulations that used Eq. (41).

Fig. 7. Low fluid level liquid velocity distributions at a heat flux of 10 kW/m2.

Fig. 8. Low fluid level vapour velocity distributions at a heat flux of 10 kW/m2.
1914 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923

5. The separation region
Two approaches to modelling the separation region were taken.
Both used a plane horizontal isobaric surface. The first placed the
surface immediately above the tube bundle, Fig. 4(a), omitting flow
modelling in this region. The second placed the surface 100 mm
above the tube bundle, allowing modelling in this region,
Fig. 4(b). The north boundary condition, described in Section 2, is
included in Fig. 4. It requires the vapour volume fraction of any
fluid re-entering through it, the re-entry void fraction, aout, to be
set. It should be noted that this void fraction only applies to fluid
re-entering through the pool. Fluid exiting will have the local pre-
dicted void fraction. The void fraction predictions for the higher
surface, Fig. 4(b), are shown for a heat flux of 10 kW/m2 and re-en-
try void fractions of 0, 0.5 and 0.9 in Fig. 5. The liquid entry, aout = 0,
shows a gas pocket above the tube bundle, while the mixture re-
entries of aout = 0.5 and aout = 0.9 show liquid plugs above it. The
observed flow pattern is shown in Fig. 2(a). The predicted void frac-
tions are not compatible with the observations. These errors in the
predicted void fraction distribution gave an incorrect pressure dis-
tribution around and within the tube bundle and consequently
1000
900
800
Pressure drop (Pa)
erroneous mass flux distributions. This did not occur with the low-
er surface, Fig. 4(a). McNeil et al. [10] varied the height of the pool
during their experiments and found that, within bounds reason-
able for a kettle reboiler, the pressure distribution within the tube
bundle was not affected by the pool height. The time averaged
shape of the free surface results from level swell produced from va-
pour generation within the tube bundle. The fluid within the swell
is highly turbulent and difficult to model, Fig. 2(a). These results
suggest that the height of the swell is set to approximately balance
pressures on the same horizontal plane across the pool and tube
bundle, with the additional gravitational effect of the liquid head
dissipated by the turbulent activity. This can either be accounted
for by having an appropriate curved surface or by having a plane
surface at the top of the bundle imposing equal pressure below
it. The latter is the simpler to implement so that the low liquid le-
vel model is the appropriate choice.
6. Simulation predictions and their verification
Section 5 has shown that the lower surface approach, Fig. 4a,
should be used to represent the experimental boiler, Fig. 2. Sec-
tion 3 has shown that that the two-fluid model parameters used
to close the model in the tube bundle are the drag coefficient given
by Eq. (33), the force on the fluid by the tubes, Eqs. (21), (22), (23),
(34), (35) and (36) and Section 4 has identified the pool drag coef-

700 ficient of Grace and co-workers [24], Eqs. (37)–(41), to be appropri-

600 ate. The only remaining element of the model that needs to be
500 clarified is how the re-entry void fraction can be used to ensure
400 experimental data that the tube bundle flow is in the appropriate flow pattern. This
re-entry void fraction = 0.0
300 was clarified by comparing the predictions with the available
re-entry void fraction = 0.5
200 re-entry void fraction = 0.9 experimental evidence. McNeil et al. [10] used the kettle reboiler
100 central column model shown in Fig. 2 to boil R113 at atmospheric pressure at heat fluxes
0 of 10, 20, 30 and 40 kW/m2. Experimental flow visualisations and
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Row number (-)
vertical, two-row pressure drops taken from the locations shown
a: Column 9.5 in Fig. 2b. were reported and will be compared with the model pre-
dictions. Additionally, the one-dimensional model, described in
1000
Section 3.1, uses a void fraction correlation and a two-phase mul-
900
tiplier verified through many experiments. The one-fluid model of
800
Pressure drop (Pa)

McNeil et al. [9] is based on these correlations and the reported

700
flow pattern dependencies, [10]. It therefore represents a reason-
600
able extrapolation of the available one-dimensional data for mass
500
flux and void fraction to this two-dimensional application. Com-
400 experimental data
parison of the one and two-fluid models will therefore give a good
300 re-entry void fraction = 0.0
indication of the proposed models ability to reproduce observed
200 re-entry void fraction = 0.5
mass fluxes and void fractions.
100 re-entry void fraction = 0.9
The two-fluid model equations were solved using the CFD code
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Ansys CFX version 11. At low re-entry void fractions, typically less
Row number (-) than 0.6, steady state solutions were obtained with the momentum
b: Column 12.5 equations solved to a root mean square residual of better than
1  105 and the volume and turbulence equations solved to better
1000
than 1  10-4. At other re-entry void fractions transient mode was
900
used with a time step of typically 0.02 s. Transient mode was usu-
800
ally necessary when fluid re-circulation occurred near the north
Pressure drop (Pa)

700
boundary. Convergence was more difficult at the higher re-entry
600
void fractions.
500
400 experimental data
300 re-entry void fraction = 0.0 6.1. Simulations at a heat flux of 10 kW/m2
200 re-entry void fraction = 0.5
100 re-entry void fraction = 0.9 Predictions were obtained from simulations carried out at a
0 heat flux of 10 kW/m2. Fig. 6 shows the predicted void fraction dis-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 tributions for re-entry void fractions of 0, 0.5 and 0.9. When the re-
Row number (-)
entering fluid is liquid, aout = 0, the surrounding pool is shown to
c: Column 15.5
be liquid. As the re-entry void fraction is increased, the void frac-
Fig. 9. Comparison of the measured two-row pressure drops with the low fluid tion at the top of the pool is reduced, reducing the two-phase den-
level model predictions at a heat flux of 10 kW/m2. sity and thus reducing the pressure surrounding the tube bundle.
 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923 1915

200
one-fluid model column 9
0.50 two-fluid model column 9
one-fluid model column 13
Vertical mass flux (kg/m 2s)

150 two-fluid model column 13

0.40 one-fluid model column 17
two-fluid model column 17
central colum model

Void fraction (-)

100
0.30

one-fluid model column 9

50 two-fluid model column 9 0.20
one-fluid model column 13
two-fluid model column 13
0 one-fluid model column 17 0.10
two-fluid model column 17
central column model
-50 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Row number (-) Row number (-)

a: Vertical mass flux distribution b: Void fraction distribution

Fig. 10. Comparision of one and two fluid models at a heat flux of 10 kW/m2.

Fig. 11. Void fraction distributions at a heat flux of 20 kW/m2.

The vapour velocity predictions are shown in Fig. 8. With an all-

Fig. 12. Flow distributions at a heat flux of 20 kW/m2.
Fig. 7 shows the liquid velocity vectors at the same conditions.
At the north face of the tube bundle liquid is shown to exit, with
the exit velocity decreasing with increasing re-entry void fraction.
At the north face of the pool, the shape of the velocity distribution
is shown to change. When the incoming void fraction is liquid, the
velocities are small, with liquid drawn down into the pool. As the
re-entry void fraction increases, the velocities are shown to in-
crease in magnitude and to flow away from the tube bundle and
form a more re-circulatory flow pattern.
liquid re-entry, the vapour is shown to behave similarly to the li-
quid. As the re-entry void fraction increases, the vapour distributes
more across the pool, until, at a re-entry void fraction of 0.9, vapour
is dispersed along all of the north boundary.
The observed flow pattern is shown in Fig. 2(a). McNeil et al. [10]
reported this test to be in the bubbly flow regime. Two-phase flow
within the tube bundle discharges into a high void fraction region
above it. Liquid is present all around the tube bundle. Only a small
amount of vapour can be seen to penetrate the pool to below the
top of the tube bundle. The vapour flow follows the tube bundle
geometry, suggesting that there is a liquid flow in the pool that is
moving towards it. Comparing the observed flow pattern, Fig. 2(a),
with the predicted void fraction distributions, Fig. 6, reveals that
re-entry void fractions of 0.5 or 0.9 give a low density region near
the top of the pool that extends much further into it than is observed.
The corresponding liquid and vapour velocities, Figs. 7 and 8, indi-
cate that the flow is moving away from the tube bundle when the
visual evidence suggests that it is flowing towards it. An all-liquid
re-entry predicts flow fields that are consistent with the visual evi-
dence. Thus, the visual evidence suggests that an all-liquid re-entry
is consistent with the bubbly flow regime.
Measured vertical two-row pressure drops were reported by
McNeil et al. [10]. The pressure taps used are shown in Fig. 2(b).
The measurements were made between two consecutive points,
e.g. row 2.5 to 4.5 in column 10.5. In the figures reported here,
the mid-row number is used to identify the location of the pressure
1916 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923

drop, in this example row 3.5. The predicted vertical pressure
drops are compared with the measured values in Fig. 9. The two-
row static liquid pressure drop is 750 Pa. The measured pressure
drops are shown to be reasonably constant and close to this value
for all three columns, as are the predicted values for an all-liquid
re-entry. Near the bundle edge, column 15.5, the predicted pres-
sure drop is constant and reasonably insensitive to the re-entry
void fraction. This is consistent with static liquid pressure occur-
ring in the pool. Thus, as with the visual evidence, the measured
pressure drops are consistent with an all-liquid re-entry void frac-
tion and thus the bubbly flow regime.
A comparison between the vertical mass flux and void fraction
predictions from the one-fluid model of McNeil et al. [9] and the
two-fluid models is shown in Fig. 10 for a heat flux of 10 kW/m2.
The two-fluid model predictions were obtained for an all-liquid
re-entry. The one-fluid model predictions were obtained by using
the static liquid boundary condition, consistent with bubbly flow.
The vertical mass flux and void fraction predictions agree reason-
ably well in columns 9 and 13. The agreement is less good in the
column 17. The vertical mass flux prediction from the two-fluid
model is shown to be negative near the base of the seventeenth
column. This resulted from downward motion of the fluid in the li-
quid pool, Fig. 7, which is not possible in the one-fluid model.
For a heat flux of 10 kW/m2, the evidence suggests that the flow
in the tube bundle is consistent with it being surrounded by static
liquid. This is consistent with the bubbly flow pattern identified by
McNeil et al. [10] and is predicted by the two-fluid model with an
all-liquid re-entry.
6.2. Simulations at a heat flux of 20 kW/m2
Predictions were obtained from simulations carried out at a
heat flux of 20 kW/m2. Fig. 11 shows the predicted void fraction
distributions for fluid re-entering through the north boundary with
void fractions of 0, 0.5 and 0.9. The predictions are similar to those
obtained at a heat flux of 10 kW/m2. However, the vapour penetra-
tion into the pool is larger at the higher heat flux for the same re-
entry void fraction. When the re-entering fluid is liquid, aout = 0,
the surrounding pool is shown to be liquid. As the incoming void
fraction is increased, the void fraction at the top of the pool is in-
creased, reducing the two-phase density and hence lowering the
pressure surrounding the tube bundle. The observed flow distribu-
tion reported by McNeil et al. [10] is shown in Fig. 12. This flow
field is in the intermittent flow regime. A two-phase flow within
the tube bundle is shown to discharge into the high void fraction
region above it. A significant quantity of two-phase mixture is in

Fig. 13. Liquid distributions at a heat flux of 20 kW/m2.

Fig. 14. Vapour velocity distributions at a heat flux of 20 kW/m2.

 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923 1917

the pool around the tube bundle. The vapour is shown to flow up-
wards and away from the tube bundle, suggesting that there is a
liquid flow in the pool that is moving away from the tube bundle.
The non-zero re-entry void fraction predictions are consistent with
the visual evidence.
Fig. 13 shows the predicted liquid velocity vectors that occurred
under the same conditions. The shape of the velocity distribution is
shown to change with re-entry void fraction in a manner similar to
what occurred at a heat flux of 10 kW/m2, Fig. 7. The non-zero re-
entry void fraction predictions are shown to be consistent with the
visual evidence, Fig. 12. The corresponding vapour velocity predic-
tions are shown in Fig. 14. The velocity distributions are similar to
those obtained at a heat flux of 10 kW/m2, Fig. 8. The velocity pre-
dictions for the non-zero re-entry void fractions are also consistent
with the visual evidence.
The predicted pressure drops are compared to the measured
values of McNeil et al. [10] in Fig. 15. As the re-entry void fraction
increases, the predicted pressure drop decreases. This is indicative
of flow out of the bundle and is therefore consistent with the
predicted velocity distributions in Figs. 13 and 14. The measured
pressure drops are consistent with the predictions with the highest
re-entry void fraction of 0.9. The agreement in the visual evidence
and the agreement between the measured and predicted pressure
drops suggest that a re-entry void fraction of 0.9 allows the two-
fluid model to replicate flows in the intermittent flow pattern.
A comparison between the vertical mass flux and void fraction
predictions from the one-fluid model of McNeil et al. [9] and the
proposed two-fluid model is shown in Fig. 16 for a heat flux of
20 kW/m2. The re-entry void fraction for the two-fluid model
was 0.9. The one-fluid model predictions were obtained for the
intermittent flow boundary condition. The vertical mass flux pre-
dictions agree reasonably well in columns 9 and 13. The agreement
is less good in the column 17. The void fraction predictions agree
reasonably well in all three columns. The models show a significant
reduction in mass flux as the flow moves up the columns, a char-
acteristic of the intermittent flow pattern identified by McNeil et
al. [10].
For a heat flux of 20 kW/m2, the evidence suggests that the flow
in the tube bundle is intermittent and that this is produced in the
two-fluid model with the near gas re-entry void fraction of 0.9.
6.3. Simulations at a heat flux of 30 and 40 kW/m2

1000 With the mechanism that forces bubbly or intermittent flow in

900 the tube bundle identified, simulations with a re-entry void frac-
800 tion of 0.9 were undertaken for heat fluxes of 30 and 40 kW/m2.
Pressure drop (Pa)

700 Fig. 17 shows the predicted and observed flow field distributions
600 at a heat flux of 30 kW/m2. The observed flow pattern reported
500 by McNeil et al. [10], which is in the intermittent flow regime,
400 experimental data shows a small two-phase flow from within the tube bundle dis-
300 re-entry void fraction = 0.0 charging into a high void fraction region above it, with a more sig-
200
re-entry void fraction = 0.5 nificant flow discharging into the pool through the north-east and
re-entry void fraction = 0.9
100 central column model north-west faces. A significant quantity of two-phase mixture is in
0 the pool around the tube bundle. Vapour flows away from the tube
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
bundle, suggesting that there is a liquid flow in the pool that is also
Row number (-)
moving away from it. The predicted void fraction, liquid and
a: Column 9.5

1000
160
900
Vertical mass flux (kg/m 2s)

800 140
Pressure drop (Pa)

700 120
600 100
500
80
400 experimental data
60 one-fluid model column 9
300 re-entry void fraction = 0.0 two-fluid model column 9
200 40 one-fluid model column 13
re-entry void fraction = 0.5 two-fluid model column 13
100 one-fluid model column 17
re-entry void fraction = 0.9 20 two-fluid model column 17
0 central column model
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Row number (-) Row number (-)
b: Column 12.5 a: Vertical mass flux distribution

1000 0.60
900
800 0.50
Pressure drop (Pa)

Void fraction (-)

700
0.40
600
500 0.30
400 experimental data
0.20 one-fluid model column 9
300 re-entry void fraction = 0.0 two-fluid model column 9
one-fluid model column 13
200 re-entry void fraction = 0.5 0.10
two-fluid model column 13
one-fluid model column 17
100 re-entry void fraction = 0.9 two-fluid model column 17
central column model
0 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Row number (-) Row number (-)
c: Column 15.5 b: Void fraction distribution
2
Fig. 15. Column pressure drops at a heat flux of 20 kW/m . Fig. 16. Comparision of one and two fluid models at a heat flux of 20 kW/m2.
1918 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923
Fig. 17. Flow fields of heat flux of 30 kW/m2.
vapour velocity fields are consistent with the visual evidence. The
predicted two-phase mixture extends down into the pool as ob-
served, and to a greater extent than what occurred at a heat flux
of 20 kW/m2, Fig. 11. There is a clear similarity between these pre-
dicted flow fields and those at a heat fluxes of 20 kW/m2 under
similar conditions. Fig. 18 shows the predicted and observed flow
fields at a heat flux of 40 kW/m2. The observed flow pattern re-
ported by McNeil et al. [10] is very similar to that obtained at a
heat flux of 30 kW/m2, with the centre of flow re-circulation being
located lower in the pool at the higher heat flux. This flow pattern
was also reported to be in the intermittent flow regime.
The measured and predicted pressure drops at heat fluxes of 30
and 40 kW/m2 are compared in Fig. 19. Values for re-entry void
fractions of 0 and 0.9 are shown, demonstrating the bubbly and
intermittent flow pattern solutions. The agreement with the latter
is very good.
A comparison between the vertical mass flux and void fraction
predictions from the one-fluid model of McNeil et al. [9] and the
two-fluid model is shown for the central column in Fig. 20 for heat
fluxes of 30 and 40 kW/m2. The one-fluid model predictions were
obtained for the intermittent flow boundary condition. The two-
fluid model predictions were obtained for the bubbly and the inter-
mittent flow boundary condition, corresponding to re-entry void
fractions of 0 and 0.9, respectively. The vertical mass flux and void
fraction predictions from the one-fluid model agree reasonably
well with the predictions from the two-fluid model when the high-
er re-entry void fraction of 0.9 is used. The difference between the
vertical mass flux predictions of the two-fluid model for the all-
liquid and near gas re-entry void fractions of 0 and 0.9, respec-
tively, shows the reductions in mass flux that occurs as a result
of the change in flow pattern. These changes are significant and
will have a major detrimental effect on the local heat-transfer
coefficients.
7. Discussion and conclusions
The two-fluid model presented requires a number of empiri-
cally-based inputs, the force on the fluid by the tubes, the drag
coefficients in the tube bundle and pool and the pool turbulence
model. It also requires appropriate boundary conditions.
One of the objectives of this study was to produce a model that
reduced to the empirically-based one-dimensional model. This has
been achieved by implementing a drag coefficient, Eq. (33), and a
tube resistance model, Eqs. (21), (22), (23), (34), (35) and (36), from
it. Obtaining the drag coefficient in this way is consistent with the
approaches of Rahman et al. [12] and Simovic et al. [21]. However,
since the correlations of Feenstra et al. [4] and Ishihara et al. [5]
have been verified for a much larger range of tube bundle geome-
tries and fluids, it is much more general. This is conclusively dem-
onstrated by Fig. 3. The tube bundle drag coefficient used in all of
the simulations was obtained from Eq. (33). This equation is only
applicable to this tube bundle boiling R113 at atmospheric pres-
sure. A different version of Eq. (33) would need to be produced if
 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923
Fig. 18. Flow fields of heat flux of 40 kW/m2.
another tube bundle geometry, fluid or pressure were to be used.
This is a cumbersome approach but it is necessary if numerical
accuracy is required of the simulation. A more universal version
of Eq. (33) is desirable. The tube resistance model is a variation
of the one-dimensional model approach. One of the strengths of
the McNeil et al. [9] one-fluid model is that the one-dimensional
methods were used without modification. The agreement between
the one-fluid and two-fluid approaches in Figs. 10, 16 and 20,
therefore demonstrate that the modified method used in the
two-fluid model is working reasonably well. However, further
experimental investigations would be helpful in validating and/or
developing the model further. In particular, measurements of void
fraction and vapour and liquid velocity distributions within the
tube bundle should be made.
The pool is more problematic. When the most commonly used
drag coefficient, that by Ishii and Zuber [23], was used, poor agree-
ment was obtained. The Grace and co-workers [24] drag coefficient
was shown to do better. This, however, is not conclusive. Inherent
in all of the simulations was the pool turbulence model. Thus, the
Grace and co-workers [24] drag coefficient with the homogeneous
k-e turbulence model gave the best results. It is not possible to say
if either represents the actual forces accurately. Some further sim-
ulations were carried out with a different pool turbulence ap-
proach. The k–e model was applied to the liquid phase, with
turbulence enhancement applied though the method of Sato and
Sekoguchi [22], and a mixing length approach was applied to the
1919
vapour phase. This produced little change to the findings achieved
with the homogeneous turbulence model, however, it was more
difficult to produce converged solutions. Recently, Liu et al. [26]
have pointed out that the Ishii–Zuber [23] method was deduced
from a databank containing data from mainly stagnant liquid pool
experiments. The pool in this case was not stagnant. Other
researchers, e.g. Lima Neto et al. [27], have measured drag coeffi-
cients for two-phase jets discharging into liquid pools, and have
shown that they are considerably smaller than those predicted
by the isolated bubble method of Clift et al. [24], although bubble
concentration was not accounted for. These latter experiments
may be more applicable to kettle reboilers, where the flow enters
the pool from the gaps between the tubes. Further investigation
of drag coefficients and pool turbulence is warranted. Experimen-
tal evidence of the flow behaviour in the pool is also desirable.
Other quantities, such as the velocity distribution within the pool,
could be measured and compared to the predictions from the cur-
rent model.
One of the findings of this study, and from that of Pezo et al.
[19], is that different solutions can be obtained depending on what
is assumed to occur at the north boundary. Ideally the whole liquid
pool should be modelled. However, the separation region above
the tube bundle has a high void fraction and is highly turbulent.
This region is unlikely to be modelled accurately by the available
empirical inputs to the two-fluid model. The simplification of
assuming this turbulent flow activity happens above an isobaric
1920 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923

1000 1000
900 900
800 800

Pressure drop (Pa)

Pressure drop (Pa)

700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 experimental data 300 experimental data
re-entry void fraction = 0.0 re-entry void fraction = 0.0
200 200
re-entry void fraction = 0.9 re-entry void fraction = 0.9
100 100 central column model
central column model
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Row number (-) Row number (-)

a: Column 9.5 at a heat flux of 30 kW/m 2 d: Column 9.5 at a heat flux of 40 kW/m 2

1000 1000
900 900
800 800
Pressure drop (Pa)

Pressure drop (Pa)

700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 experimental data 300 experimental data
200 re-entry void fraction = 0.0 200 re-entry void fraction = 0.0
100 re-entry void fraction = 0.9 100 re-entry void fraction = 0.9
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Row number (-) Row number (-)
2 2
b: Column 12.5 at a heat flux of 30 kW/m e: Column 12.5 at a heat flux of 40 kW/m

1000 1000
900 900
800 800
Pressure drop (Pa)
Pressure drop (Pa)

700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300 experimental data
experimental data
200 re-entry void fraction = 0.0
200 re-entry void fraction = 0.0
100 re-entry void fraction = 0.9
100 re-entry void fraction = 0.9
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Row number (-) Row number (-)
2 2
c: Column 15.5 at a heat flux of 30 kW/m f: Column 15.5 at a heat flux of 40 kW/m

Fig. 19. Two row pressure drops at a heat flux of 30 kW/m2 and 40 kW/m2.

plane is consistent with the experimental observations of McNeil
et al. [10], who found that the pressure distributions within the
tube bundle were independent of the fluid levels above it.
McNeil et al. [10] observed that two flow patterns existed for
the range of conditions tested, bubbly flow and intermittent flow.
Multiple solutions to the two-fluid model can be produced by vary-
ing the re-entry void fraction on the north boundary. The observed
flow patterns correspond to two of these. An all-liquid re-entry
produces bubbly flow and a near-vapour re-entry produces inter-
mittent flow. McNeil et al. [10] tested two fluids, n-pentane and
R113, and reported that the transition from bubbly to intermittent
flow occurred when the Kutateladze number, Ku, based on the ver-
tical superficial gas velocity in the minimum gap between the
tubes, was 1.09. For R113, this gas velocity is 1.53 m/s. Contour
plots of this velocity from the two-fluid model are shown in
Fig. 21. The upper level for the contour plot is set to 1.53 m/s so
that the continuous region above this corresponds to flow in the
intermittent flow regime. Fig. 21a shows that the transition veloc-
ity is not achieved to any significant extent when the re-entry void
fraction is 0.0 and the heat flux is 10 kW/m2, i.e. bubbly flow exists
throughout the tube bundle. At the higher heat fluxes, an increas-
ing portion of the tube bundle is shown to be in the intermittent
flow regime. The point where the transition velocity is achieved
moves lower down the tube bundle as the heat flux increases,
Fig. 21(b)–(d). McNeil et al. [10] reported that the flow into the
pool emanated from row 14 at a heat flux of 20 kW/m2, row 9 or
10 at a heat flux of 30 kW/m2 and row 8 or 9 at a heat flux of
40 kW/m2. This is reasonably consistent with Fig. 21. The largest
superficial gas velocity occurs at the north boundary. The general-
ized boundary condition at this location is therefore:
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
qg Jg
If Ku ¼ h  i0:25  1:09; are-entry ¼ 0;
g r ql  qg
else are-entry ¼ 0:9; ð42Þ
where Jg is the superficial gas velocity based on the minimum gap
between the tubes and occurring at the north boundary of the tube
bundle.
It is reasonable to ask why the switch in re-entry void fraction
reproduces the change in flow pattern in the tube bundle. In the
physical world, bubbly flows are buoyancy driven. The bubbles
 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923 1921

160 160

140 140
Vertical mass flux (kg/m 2s)

Vertical mass flux (kg/m 2s)

120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60
one-fluid model one-fluid model
40 two-fluid model bubbly flow 40
two-fluid model bubbly flow
20 two-fluid model intermittent flow two-fluid model intermittent flow
20
central column model central column model
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Column 9 row number (-) Column 9 row number (-)
2
a: Vertical mass flux distribution at 30 kW/m c: Vertical mass flux distribution at 40 kW/m 2

0.70 0.80

0.60 0.70

0.60
0.50
Void fraction (-)

Void fraction (-)

0.50
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.20 one-fluid model one-fluid model
two-fluid model bubbly flow 0.20 two-fluid model bubbly flow
0.10 two-fluid model intermittent flow two-fluid model intermittent flow
0.10
central column model central column model
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Column 9 row number (-) Column 9 row number (-)
2
b: Void fraction distribution at 30 kW/m d: Void fraction distribution at 40 kW/m 2

Fig. 20. Comparision of one and two fluid models at a heat flux of 30 and 40 kW/m2.

within the tube bundle move vertically upwards and therefore do constant vertical mass flux, the vertical pressure gradient de-
not enter the pool beyond the tube bundle edge. Any vapour in the creases until a critical gas-mass fraction is reached, and increases
pool is entrained there by the liquid re-entering it. Bubbly flows again thereafter. The critical gas-mass fraction therefore occurs
continue until a transition condition occurs. After transition, inter- when:
mittent flow occurs. In this flow regime the gas flow is too small to  
drag all of the liquid upwards. Consequentially, some of it has to o op
¼ 0: ð43Þ
move horizontally, taking vapour with it, so that vapour directly oz oy
enters the pool from the tube bundle. In the model proposed, bub-
For each heat flux, the approximate inlet vertical mass flux was ob-
bly flow is produced by an all-liquid re-entry void fraction because
tained from the two-fluid model. The one-dimensional version of
it prevents vapour from entering the pool thus replicating what oc-
the energy equation for this column is then:
curs in the physical world. The explanation of how intermittent
flow is reproduced by a near-gas re-entry void fraction follows dz pDq
from the global mass balances. The liquid flow through the south mv hfg ¼ 2 ; ð44Þ
dy P
boundary must balance with the net vapour flow out of the north
boundary, Fig. 4(a). Thus, any liquid exiting through the north Eqs. (20), (44) were integrated until Eq. (43) was satisfied. The verti-
boundary must re-enter through it. Vapour exiting through the cal mass flux was thereafter reduced to maintain condition (43). The
north boundary must drag some liquid with it. This liquid must predictions are referred to in the relevant figures as the central col-
re-enter. The re-entry void fraction only applies to fluid that re- umn model. For heat fluxes of 10, 20, 30 and 40 kW/m2, Eq. (43)
enters through the north boundary. Thus, an all-gas re-entry would was first satisfied at Kutateladze numbers of 0.77, 0.94, 0.96 and
prevent liquid from exiting the north boundary and would cause 0.98. The condition for the onset of intermittent flow is 1.09, [10].
dry-out by a non-physical mechanism and is consequently not pos- Thus, the minimum turning point with respect to gas-mass fraction
sible. A near-vapour re-entry means that a little liquid can exit. is reasonably coincident with the onset of intermittent flow. The pre-
However, the same vapour generation is present so the same dictions of the vertical mass flux and void fraction distribution are
capacity to drag liquid exists, and since it can not exit through show on Figs. 10, 16 and 20 and the predictions of pressure drop in
the top of the tube bundle it is forced through the north-east Figs. 9, 15 and 19. The agreement between the central column model
boundary as occurs in the physical world. Thus, switching the re- and the one and two-fluid models would suggest that the re-entry
entry void fraction from 0 to 0.9 induces the effects of the flow re- void fraction of 0.9 allows the two-fluid model to give values close
gime transition without it being linked directly to the cause. to those obtained for the minimum pressure gradient condition.
The final element of the model that requires some discussion is The value of 0.9 is not exact. Within the accuracy of the measure-
setting the re-entry void fraction to a value of 0.9 to obtain inter- ments a range of values close to 0.9 will produce a similar outcome.
mittent flow. The column most likely to flow closest to one-dimen- The predictions from the one-fluid model of McNeil et al. [9]
sional flow is the central column, as the symmetry condition agree reasonably well with those from the two-fluid model, Figs.
prevents a horizontal mass flux component. The flow in this 10, Figs. 16 and 20, when flow pattern is accounted for. Some dis-
column is therefore approximately described by Eq. (20). For a agreement between these models is evident in the columns near
1922 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923
Fig. 21. Vertical superficial gas velocities at various heat fluxes.
the bundle-pool interface. The one-fluid model did not reproduce
the pressure distribution in column 15.5 too well. McNeil et al.
[9] argued that this was due to difficulties in applying the pool
pressure distribution with sufficient accuracy. With the shell in-
cluded, as it is in the two-fluid model, this shortcoming is removed,
leading to the better agreement achieved by the two-fluid model,
Figs. 9, 15 and 19.
With the acknowledged shortcomings, many of which result
from the limited experimental data that are available, the two-fluid
model presented does replicate the experimental findings of
McNeil et al. [10] reasonably well and reduces to the one-dimen-
sional model in appropriate circumstances. The predicted flow dis-
tribution in bubbly flow, Figs. 6–8, agrees reasonably well with
that observed, Fig. 2(a). The predicted flow distributions in inter-
mittent flows, Figs. 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18, agree reasonably well
with those observed, Figs. 12, 17 and 18. The measured and pre-
dicted pressure drop distributions also agree under these circum-
stances, Figs. 9, 15, 19. Finally, the empirical transition velocities
are consistent with the model predictions, Fig. 21. Future develop-
ments of this approach will require turbulence levels to be mea-
sured in the pool, void fraction distributions to be measured in
the tube bundle and velocity distributions and drag coefficients
to be measured or deduced for the pool and tube bundle.
References
[1] T.W.C. Brisbane, I.D.R. Grant, P.B. Whalley, Prediction method for kettle
reboiler performance, ASME paper, 80-HT-42, 1980.
[2] M.K. Jensen, Model for the re-circulating flow in a kettle reboiler, in:
Proceedings AIChE, New York, 1988.
[3] K. Bamardouf, D.A. McNeil, Experimental and numerical investigation of two-
phase pressure drop in vertical cross-flow over a horizontal tube bundle, J.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009) 1356–1365.
[4] P.A. Feenstra, D.S. Weaver, R.L. Judd, Improved void fraction model for two-
phase cross-flow in horizontal tube bundles, Int. J. Multiphas Flow 26 (11)
(2000) 1851–1873.
[5] K. Ishihara, J.W. Palen, J. Taborek, Critical review of correlations for predicting
two-phase flow pressure drop across tube banks, Heat Transfer Eng. 1 (3)
(1980) 23–32.
[6] ESDU, Crossflow Pressure Loss over Banks of Plain Tubes in Square and
Triangular Arrays Including Effects of Flow Direction, vol. 79034, Engineering
Sciences Data Unit, 1979, p. 17.
[7] B.M. Burnside, K.M. Miller, D.A. McNeil, T. Bruce, Heat transfer coefficient
distributions in an experimental kettle reboiler thin slice, Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
79 (4) (2001) 445–452. 7p.
[8] B.M. Burnside, 2-D kettle reboiler circulation model, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 20
(4) (1999) 437–445.
[9] D.A. McNeil, K. Barmardouf, B.M. Burnside, A one-fluid, two-dimensional flow
simulation model for a kettle reboiler, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 825–
835.
[10] D.A. McNeil, K. Barmardouf, B.M. Burnside, M. Almeshaal, Investigation of
flow phenomena in a kettle reboiler, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 53 (2010)
836–848.
 D.A. McNeil et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 1907–1923
[11] D.P. Edwards, M.K. Jensen, Two-Dimensional Numerical Model of Two-Phase
Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow in a Kettle Reboiler, vol 159, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Heat Transfer Division, HTD, Minneapolis, MN, USA,
1991, pp. 9–16.
[12] F.H. Rahman, J.G. Gebbie, M.K. Jensen, Interfacial friction correlation for shell-
side vertical two-phase cross-flow past horizontal in-line and staggered tube
bundles, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 22 (4) (1996) 753–766.
[13] D.S. Schrage, J.T. Hsu, M.K. Jensen, Two-phase pressure drop in vertical
crossflow across a horizontal tube bundle, AIChE J. 34 (1) (1988) 107–115.
[14] R. Dowlati, M. Kawaji, A.M.C. Chan, Pitch-to-diameter effect on two-phase flow
across an in-line tube bundle, AIChE J. 36 (5) (1990) 765–772.
[15] R. Dowlati, A.M.C. Chan, M. Kawaji, Hydrodynamics of two-phase flow across
horizontal in-line and staggered rod bundles, J. Fluid Eng. Trans. ASME 114 (3)
(1992) 450–456.
[16] Z.V. Stosic, V.D. Stevanovic, Advanced three-dimensional two-fluid porous
media method for transient two-phase flow thermal-hydraulics in complex
geometries, Numer. Heat Transfer B: Fundam. 41 (3-4) (2002) 263–289.
[17] V.D. Stevanovic, Z.V. Stosic, M. Kiera, U. Stoll, Horizontal steam generator
thermal-hydraulics at various steady-state power levels, in: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, ICONE, Arlington, VA, United
States, vol. 3, 2002, pp. 767–779.
[18] V.D. Stevanovic, Z.V. Stosic, M. Kiera, U. Stoll, Numerical simulation and
analyses of the loss of feedwater transient at the unit 4 of Kola Npp, in:
1923
Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, ICONE,
Arlington, VA, United States, vol. 3, 2002, pp. 781–792.
[19] M. Pezo, V.D. Stevanovic, Z. Stevanovic, A two-dimensional model of the kettle
reboiler shell side thermal-hydraulics, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 49 (7–8)
(2006) 1214–1224.
[20] R. Dowlati, M. Kawaji, D. Chisholm, A.M.C. Chan, Void fraction prediction in
two-phase flow across a tube bundle, AIChE J. 38 (1992) 619–622.
[21] Z.R. Simovic, S. Ocokoljic, V.D. Stevanovic, Interfacial friction correlations for
the two-phase flow across tube bundle, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 33 (2) (2007)
217–226.
[22] Y. Sato, K. Sekoguchi, Liquid velocity distribution in two-phase bubble flow,
Int. J .Multiphase Flow. 2 (1975) 79–95.
[23] M. Ishii, N. Zuber, Drag coefficient and relative velocity in bubbly, droplet or
particulate flows, AIChE J. 25 (1979) 843–855.
[24] R. Clift, J.R. Grace, M.E. Weber, Bubbles, Drops and Particles, Academic Press,
New York, 1978.
[25] S. Lo, R. Bagatin, M. Masi, The development of a CFD analysis and design tool
for air-lift reactors, in: Proceedings of the SAIChE 2000 Conference, Secunda,
South Africa, 2000.
[26] Y. Liu, T. Habiki, X. Sun, M. Ishii, J.M. Kelly, Drag coefficient in one-dimensional
two-group two-fluid model, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 29 (2008) 1402–1410.
[27] I.E. Lima Neto, D.Z. Zhu, N. Rajaratnam, Bubbly jets in stagnant water, Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 34 (2008) 1130–1141.