See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336702800

NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF THE INTERFACIAL HEAT TRANSFER

CORRELATIONS FOR A R-134a SUBCOOLED BOILING FLOW

Conference Paper · October 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 120

2 authors:

Thaís Pirez Guilherme Borges Ribeiro

Federal University of Santa Catarina Instituto Tecnologico de Aeronautica
7 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    92 PUBLICATIONS   355 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TERRA: A Nuclear Reactor to Help Explore Space, Deep Ocean and Difficult Access Locations View project

Tecnologia de Reatores Rápidos Avançados (TERRA) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Guilherme Borges Ribeiro on 21 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE ENERGIA NUCLEAR – ABEN
2019 International Nuclear Atlantic Conference - INAC 2019
Santos, SP, Brazil, October 21-25, 2019

NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF THE INTERFACIAL HEAT

TRANSFER CORRELATIONS FOR A R-134a SUBCOOLED BOILING
FLOW

Thaís P.A. Ferreira1 and Guilherme B. Ribeiro1,2

1
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica (ITA)
Praça Marechal Eduardo Gomes, 50
12228-900 São José dos Campos, SP
thaispirez@gmail.com
2
Instituto de Estudos Avançados (IEAv)
Trevo Coronel Aviador José Alberto Albano do Amarante, 01
12228-001 São José dos Campos, SP
gbribeiro@ieav.cta.br

ABSTRACT

The present study proposes the assessment of interfacial heat transfer correlations, via CFD (Computational
Fluid Dynamics) simulation. Although simulation software provides several correlations to model the interfacial
heat transfer that occurs in boiling flow, most of them are not completely suitable for the simulations of the
operating conditions found in Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs). In order to assess which sub-models can
properly predict the boiling two-phase flow characteristics found in PWRs, an experimental condition, from Chu
et al. (2017), was numerically replicated and parameters such as bubble departure diameter, frequency of bubble
departure, nucleation site density and area influence coefficient were evaluated and the best combination of
models chosen. Then, considering the Eulerian-Eulerian two-phase modeling, an upward subcooled flow boiling
in an annulus, with R-134a as the working fluid, was simulated and three interfacial heat transfer sub-models
were analyzed: Ranz-Marshal, Tomiyama and Hughmark. The saturation pressure was 1.29 MPa and the mass
flux, 998 kg/m².s. A uniform heat flux of 120.4 kW/m² is applied along the annulus, whereas the flow inlet
subcooling was of 12.4ºC. The void fraction radial profile of two-phase flow was attained, analyzed and
compared to the benchmark study. It is expected to indicate the interfacial heat transfer sub-model that will help
bring CFD tools close to accurately predicting subcooled boiling flows.

1. INTRODUCTION

Technology has been changing and becoming more complex every day, and the requirements
to attend these changes demands new solutions that won’t impact in costs, production, size or
quality of the modern systems created. The conception and operability of heat transfer
mechanism are some of these solutions, and also a primordial factor in helping technology
advances. Developments in many modern applications are encountering rapid escalation in
heat dissipation, coupled with a need to decrease the size of thermal management hardware.
These developments have spurred unprecedented interest in replacing single phase hardware
with boiling and condensation counterparts, migrating to two phase flow systems [1].

One two-phase flow heat transfer regime intensively studied is the subcooled boiling flow,
given its high heat transfer coefficient. This regime occurs when the fluid saturation
temperature is smaller than the wall’s temperature and higher than the bulk’s. The wall
superheating then activates bubble nucleation, in which single bubbles or a bubbly layer is
formed. These bubbles then grow, migrate away from the wall and are swept to the subcooled
core of the bulk liquid flow, collapsing and developing a full vapor layer along a heated
channel. Such process ends when the liquid bulk temperature reaches the saturation point,
shifting the heat transfer regime to saturated boiling.

In nuclear industry, boiling can occur in several systems and assemblies of a reactor, which
makes the study of such subject increasingly relevant, considering that determining the
boiling flow dynamics is of great importance for guaranteeing safe operations and operability
of such systems. Also, the proper prediction of the void fraction and average bubble size
along the nuclear core are important aspects that should be accounted for the neutron flux
estimation and nuclear reactivity prediction [2]. However, given the complex nature of two
phase flows and specially the intricate composing of subcooled boiling flow, with its
nucleate, growth and coalescence of bubbles, it is difficult to accurately predict bubble
propagation throughout the flow.

A correct prediction of the local heat transfer coefficient at the interface is key in the
numerical modelling of bubbly flow with thermal phase change, especially considering its
impact in bubble formation and vapor distribution, however due to insufficient knowledge of
the dynamic mechanism governing the interphase interactions, a variety of empirical
correlations have been adopted in such kind of modelling [3]. Several researches reviewed
the literature regarding the interfacial heat transfer correlations available [3-7] and an overall
conclusion is that there is still room for improvement of the existing empirical and
experimental correlations, considering that most of those are only functional to a certain
range of operability, not being reliable to different conditions. Such restricted applicability
contributes to the high uncertainty present in choosing an appropriate heat transfer coefficient
for two-fluid computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations [4].

Considering these aforementioned aspects, this study proposes the analysis of the
applicability of three interfacial heat transfer models available in CFD software ANSYS
FLUENT V2019 R2, to a subcooled boiling flow in an annulus at high pressure, replicating
the experimental work of Chu et al. [8]. By comparing the void fraction distribution along the
radius of the annulus, obtained through numerical analyses, with the experimental data, the
effects of the models that govern the interfacial heat transfer coefficient and, consequently the
prediction of vapor formation, were analyzed and the best combination for depicting
subcooled boiling is appointed.

2. MODEL DESCRIPTION

2.1. Mathematical Modeling

The Eulerian Multiphase Model (EMM) is used to solve the continuity, momentum and
energy equations of the proposed CFD modeling. Such model allows for the modeling of
multiple separate, yet interacting phases. In order to detail the main equations of this model,
the concept of volume fraction must be understood. Volume fractions represent the space
occupied by each phase, and the laws of conservation of mass and momentum are satisfied by
each phase individually. The derivation of the conservation equations can be done by
ensemble averaging the local instantaneous balance for each of the phases [9].

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

From this principle, the volume of a phase q, is defined by:

𝑉𝑞 = ∫𝑉 𝛼𝑞 𝑑𝑉 , (1)

where 𝛼𝑞 denotes de volume fraction of the phase q. Also:

∑𝑛𝑞=1 𝛼𝑞 = 1 . (2)

The mass conservation can be, then, obtained by:

𝜕
(𝛼𝑞 𝜌𝑞 ) + ∇(𝛼𝑞 𝜌𝑞 𝑣⃗𝑞 ) = ∑𝑛𝑝=1(𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 − 𝑚̇𝑞𝑝 ),
𝜕𝑡 (3)

where 𝑣⃗𝑞 and 𝜌𝑞 are the velocity and density of phase q, respectively. The mass transfer rate
per volume is denoted by 𝑚̇, in which the sub-index qp indicates that it is from phase q to
phase p and pq, the opposite. The term 𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 can be related to the vapor formation rate per
unite of volume, 𝑚̇𝑙𝑣 , which is described as the contribution of the interfacial and wall-vapor
mass transfer rates [2], by:

(𝑇 −𝑇𝑠𝑎𝑡 )𝐻ℎ𝑡 𝐴𝑖 𝑞̇ 𝑒 𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙

̇ 𝐿+𝑐𝑙
𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 = 𝑚𝑙𝑣 + 𝐿+𝑐 ,
𝑝,𝑙 (𝑇𝑠𝑎𝑡 −𝑇𝑙 ) 𝑝,𝑙 (𝑇𝑠𝑎𝑡 −𝑇𝑙 ) (4)

where 𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 is the cell face area, 𝑇𝑙 is the liquid temperature, 𝑇𝑠𝑎𝑡 is the saturation
temperature, L is the specific latent heat, 𝑞̇ 𝑒 is the evaporative heat flux, 𝑐𝑝,𝑙 is the liquid
specific heat. 𝐴𝑖 is the interfacial area density, which describes the Particle Model [9]:
6𝛼𝑝
𝐴𝑖 = ,
𝑑𝑝 (5)
in which 𝑑𝑝 is the bubble diameter.

From equation (4), 𝐻ℎ𝑡 is the interfacial heat transfer coefficient, which is given by:
𝐾𝑞 𝑁𝑢𝑝
𝐻ℎ𝑡 = 𝐶ℎ𝑡 ,
𝑑𝑝 (6)

where 𝐾𝑞 is the thermal conductivity of phase q and 𝐶ℎ𝑡 is the heat transfer factor used to
adjust the interfacial heat transfer coefficient, and, in this paper, it is set to 0.2, based on the
premise that the lower values enhance the void fraction predictions [2]. In order to obtain the
Nusselt number of the phase p, 𝑁𝑢𝑝 , the utilized software offers several models and options.
The main correlations analyzed in this paper are those of Ranz Marshall [10], Hughmark [11]
and Tomiyama [12].

The Ranz Marshall [10] model obtains the Nusselt number by:

1/2
𝑁𝑢𝑝 = 2.0 + 0.6𝑅𝑒𝑝 𝑃𝑟 1/3,
(7)

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

 where 𝑅𝑒𝑝 is the relative Reynolds number based on the diameter of phase p and the relative
velocity |𝑢 ⃗⃗𝑞 |, and Pr is the Prandtl number of phase q [9].
⃗⃗𝑝 − 𝑢

The Hughmark [11] model is actually an extension of the Ranz Marshall model to a wide
variety of Reynolds numbers and for the interval of 0 ≤ Pr < 250 [9]. The Nusselt number can
be obtained as follows:

For 0 ≤ 𝑅𝑒𝑝 < 776.06:

1/2
𝑁𝑢𝑝 = 2.0 + 0.6𝑅𝑒𝑝 𝑃𝑟 1/3 ,
(8)

and for 776.06 ≤ 𝑅𝑒𝑝 :

𝑁𝑢𝑝 = 2.0 + 0.27𝑅𝑒𝑝0.62 𝑃𝑟 1/3 . (9)

The Tomiyama [12] model is applicable to turbulent bubbly flows with relative low Reynolds
number [9]. The 𝑁𝑢𝑝 is given by:

𝑁𝑢𝑝 = 2.0 + 0.15𝑅𝑒𝑝0.8 𝑃𝑟 0.5 .

(10)

The conservation of momentum, for a phase q, is given by:

𝜕
(𝛼𝑞 𝜌𝑞 𝑣⃗𝑞 ) + ∇(𝛼𝑞 𝜌𝑝 𝑣⃗𝑞 𝑣⃗𝑞 ) = −𝛼𝑞 ∇P + ∇ ∙ 𝑡𝑞̅ + 𝛼𝑞 𝜌𝑞 𝑔⃗ + 𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 𝑣⃗𝑝𝑞 − 𝑚̇𝑞𝑝 𝑣⃗𝑞𝑝 +
𝜕𝑡 (11)
(𝐹⃗𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔,𝑞 + 𝐹⃗𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡,𝑞 + 𝐹⃗𝑤𝑙,𝑞 + 𝐹⃗𝑡𝑑,𝑞 + 𝐹⃗𝑣𝑚,𝑞 ),

where P is the pressure shared by all phases, 𝑡𝑞̅ is the q phase stress-strain tensor and 𝑣⃗𝑝𝑞 is
the inter-phase velocity. Variables 𝐹⃗𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔,𝑞 , 𝐹⃗𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡,𝑞 , 𝐹⃗𝑤𝑙,𝑞 , 𝐹⃗𝑡𝑑,𝑞 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝐹𝑣𝑚,𝑞 are the interfacial
momentum exchange terms related to drag force, lift force, wall lubrication force, turbulent
dispersion force and virtual mass force, respectively. In this paper, these interfacial
momentum exchange models were set as model 18 of Zhang et al. [13] work, in which the
equations are fully described, as the authors thoroughly analyze the impact of said models on
an upward subcooled boiling flow of R134a in an annulus and determine the best
combination to be applied to this kind of flow. Also based on their work, the turbulence
model K-ε standard, with standard wall functions, was chosen as the turbulence model.

The energy conservation equation for phase q is:

𝜕 ∂P
(𝛼𝑞 𝜌𝑞 ℎ𝑞 ) + ∇(𝛼𝑞 𝜌𝑝 𝑣⃗𝑞 ℎ𝑞 ) = −𝛼𝑞 𝜕𝑡 − ∇𝑞̇⃗𝑞 + 𝑞𝑝𝑞 + (𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 ℎ𝑝 − 𝑚̇𝑝𝑞 ℎ𝑞 ),
𝜕𝑡 (12)

where h is the specific enthalpy, 𝑞̇⃗𝑞 is the heat flux vector and 𝑞𝑝𝑞 is the energy exchange term
between the different phases.

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

The wall boiling model adopted in this paper is the RPI Model [14], in which the total heat
flux from the wall to the liquid is partitioned into three components, the convective heat flux,
𝑞̇ 𝐶 , the quenching heat flux, 𝑞̇ 𝑄 , and the evaporative heat flux, 𝑞̇ 𝐸 :

𝑞̇ 𝑤 = 𝑞̇ 𝐶 + 𝑞̇ 𝑄 + 𝑞̇ 𝐸 ,
(13)
where:

𝑞̇ 𝐶 = ℎ𝐶 (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑙 )(1 − 𝐴𝑏 ),
(14)

with ℎ𝐶 being the single phase heat transfer coefficient, Tw is the wall temperature and Ab is
the heated wall surface which is covered by nucleating bubbles [9].

The quenching flux represents additional energy transfer related to liquid filling the wall
vicinity after the bubble detachment [2] and is given by:

2𝑘
𝑞̇ 𝑄 = √𝜋𝜆𝑙 𝑇 (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑙 ),
𝑙 (15)

where kl is the conductivity, T is the periodic time and 𝜆𝑙 is the diffusivity, expressed by:
𝑘
𝜆𝑙 = 𝜌 𝐶𝑙 .
𝑙 𝑝𝑙 (16)

The evaporative heat flux is given by:

𝑞̇ 𝐸 = 𝑉𝑑 𝑁𝑤 𝜌𝑣 ℎ𝑓𝑣 ,
(17)

in which Vd is the volume of the bubble based on the bubble departure diameter, N w is the
active nucleate site density, 𝜌𝑣 is the vapor density and ℎ𝑓𝑣 is the latent heat of evaporation.
These equations need closure relations for the following parameters: bubble departure
diameter, nucleate site density, area of influence and frequency of bubble departure. Based on
Ferreira and Ribeiro [15], models 1 and 2, show in Table 1, were chosen to set these
parameters.

Table 1: Bubble parameters models

Frequency of
Bubble Departure Nucleation Site Area Influence
Model Bubble
diameter Density Coeff.
Departure
1 Tolubinski Cole Lemmert Delvalle-Kenning
2 Tolubinski Cole Kocamustafaogullari Delvalle-Kenning

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

2.2. Simulation Domain and Boundary Conditions

The geometry simulated is shown in Fig. 1 and illustrates a 1.75 m heated tube with diameter
of 8.85 mm. R-134a with a subcooled temperature of 12.4ºC enters on the bottom side of the
channel (right side, in the horizontal representation) and flows upwards against gravity. It was
considered a saturation pressure of 1.29 MPa, while an uniform heat flux of 120.4 kW/m²
was applied only to one wall of the tube, while the other was adiabatic. This is the
representation the thickness of the annulus used by Chu et al. [8], whose benchmark study
was used for validation purposes. The high-pressure data provided by the authors corresponds
to a fluid-vapor density ratio that is equal to that of Pressured Water Reactors (PWR) at 7.95
MPa.

Figure 1: Geometry and boundary conditions

The thermophysical properties of the liquid phase are assumed to vary with the temperature,
while the vapor phase properties are considered at the saturation temperature. The problem
was considered as steady-state and a two-dimensional planar model was used to represent the
geometry. A tri-dimensional representation was not considered due to the high computational
costs embedded in this kind of geometry, aligned to the simple configuration of the test
section. A mesh with uniform and square control volumes was created and a grid
independence analysis was performed in order to achieve unchangeable accurate solutions for
the flow boiling. Therefore, six quadrangular meshes with 25, 50, 65, 75, 85 and 100k
volumes were evaluated.

In order to ensure conformity to the physical problem, a fully developed liquid flow was
considered as flow input. A previous adiabatic simulation was performed and field solutions
(velocity vector and turbulence variables) found at the channel outlet in steady state were
applied as the flow profile at the channel inlet.

Six different combinations of the interfacial heat transfer coefficients models available in the
Ansys Fluent were numerically simulated. The tests realized are presented in Table 2:

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

 Table 2: Numerical tests realized

Test Bubble Parameters Interfacial Heat Transfer

Number Model Model

1 Ranz Marshal
2 Model 1 Tomiyama
3 Hughmark
4 Ranz Marshal
5 Model 2 Tomiyama
6 Hughmark

The experimental case analyzes the bubbles parameters in seven different elevations, located
along the axial length at positions: 1730mm, 1480mm, 1230mm, 980mm, 730mm, 480mm
and 230mm. The radial profiles presented in the benchmark paper were processed into non-
dimensional parameters, considering the void fraction at elevation 1730mm and radial
position of 0.7mm as a reference, used to express the non-dimensional void fraction as:
𝛼
𝛼∗ = .
𝛼𝑟𝑒𝑓 (18)

The non-dimensional radial position r* is obtained by:

𝑟 − 𝑟𝑖
𝑟∗ = ,
𝑟𝑜 − 𝑟𝑖 (19)

where ri is the outer radius of the inner pipe and ro is the inner radius of the outer pipe.

2.2.1. Numerical treatment

The discretization of the partial differential equations presented in the mathematical modeling
is based on the conservative Finite Volume Method. First Order Upwind spatial discretization
was applied to volume fraction, turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent dissipation rate.
Momentum and energy equations used Second Order Upwind spatial discretization. A steady-
state condition was set, the coupled scheme was selected and momentum explicit relaxation
factor was set for 0.6, as well the energy under-relaxation factor. Residuals must be below
10-3 in order to a solution be considered as converged.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In order to ensure grid-independent solutions, meshes with 25, 50, 65, 75, 85 and 100k
volumes were created. The chosen conditions for this analysis were the same of the simulated
cases: 1.29 MPa saturation pressure, inlet subcooling of 12.4ºC and heat flux of 12.4 kW/m²,
also, the interfacial heat transfer model used was Ranz Marshall [10] and bubble parameters

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

set according to model 1 [15]. Figure 2 presents the void fraction radial profile to all the
meshes obtained at the elevation of 1730mm. As the results were close, but not identical, the
chosen mesh was that of 85k volumes, which is as good as, but not as coarse and numerically
expensive as the 100k one.

Figure 2: Mesh dependency check

The void fraction values obtained through the numerical analysis for five elevations, for
model 1, are presented in Figs.3a-e.

Figure 3.a: Void fraction at elevation 230mm – model 1

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

 Figure 3.b: Void fraction at elevation 480mm – model 1

Figure 3.c: Void fraction at elevation 980mm – model 1

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

 Figure 3.d: Void fraction at elevation 1480mm – model 1

Figure 3.e: Void fraction at elevation 1730mm – model 1

The void fraction values obtained through the numerical analysis for the same elevations, for
model 2, are presented in Figs.4a-e.

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

 Figure 4.a: Void fraction at elevation 230mm – model 2

Figure 4.b: Void fraction at elevation 480mm – model 2

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

 Figure 4.c: Void fraction at elevation 980mm – model 2

Figure 4.d: Void fraction at elevation 1480mm – model 2

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

 Figure 4.e: Void fraction at elevation 1730mm – model 2

For the tests realized under the bubble parameters set in model 1, Figs.3a-e, it is noticeable
that the interfacial heat transfer coefficients have a somewhat good accuracy only around the
middle of the domain, elevations 480 mm and 980 mm. There is an over estimative of the
void fraction near the inlet and it is underestimated near the outlet.

For the second round of tests, 4 to 6, Figs. 4a-e, the results have the same tendency of
overestimate the void fraction near the inlet and underestimate as close to the outlet. However,
the void fractions obtained were much closer to the experimental values than those obtained
in the first round of tests, as can be noted in the same middle elevations, 480 mm and 980 mm
aforementioned.

The only difference between models 1 and 2 resides on the formulation used to obtain the
nucleation site density. The Kocamustafaogulari and Ishii [16] model, used on the second
round of tests, takes in consideration the difference between the wall and liquid temperature,
contributing for a better depict of the flow behavior through the tube and, consequently, a
better performance in predicting the void fraction radial distribution throughout the
elevations. On the other hand, the Lemmert and Chawla [17] correlation, used on model 1,
only considers the wall and saturation temperatures, not taking into consideration the
variations that occurs in bubble departure diameter and the subcooled temperature throughout
the flow, which affects the void fraction distribution.

Throughout the tests realized, those that were set as Ranz Marshall [10] and Hughmark [11],
had little to no difference in the void fractions values, and had an overall better performance
than the ones that used the Tomiyama [12] correlation to obtain the interfacial heat transfer
coefficient, regardless of the bubble parameters model applied.

The poor results of the Tomiyama [12] correlation can be explained when comparing the
Nusselt number formulation of said model to that of Ranz Marshall [10] and Hughmark [11].

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

Equation (10) overestimates the value of the Nusselt number when compared to the results
obtained through equations (7) to (9), considering similar ranges of Reynolds number and 0 ≤
Pr < 250. By overvaluing the heat transfer coefficient, it considers that there is a higher heat
transfer rate occurring than the actual one, which impact on the bubble prediction.
Considering a higher heat transfer rate implies in more condensation happening, leading to an
over estimative of the liquid volume fraction, consequently providing lower void fractions
values throughout the test section.

4. CONCLUSIONS

A two-fluid Eulerian multiphase model was used in order to verify and validate the influence
of heat transfer coefficient in the prediction of the subcooled flow boiling phenomenon. The
model setups for the case, as well as the tests realized, were presented and the numerical data
compared with the experimental results of Chu et al. [8]. According to the obtained results,
the use of CFD can be considered a promising numerical tool for the characterization of
subcooled boiling flow; however, the numerical data also shows room for improvement in the
prediction of void fraction distribution. It was concluded that models that have the Ranz
Marshall [10] or Hughmark [11] correlations for heat transfer coefficient and were set under
model 2 for bubble parameters, presented the closest results to the experimental ones.

The influence of numerical factors presented in several equations can have a fundamental
influence in the solution of the continuity equations, which leads to the necessity of further
exploration of said factors in the radial void fraction distribution throughout the flow. This
can be corroborated especially considering the influence that setting of the heat transfer factor
as 0.2, in equation (6), had on the performance of the obtained data. Also, more tests can be
realized altering the interactions models, following Zhang et al. [13] suggestions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are indebted to the IEAv for the technical support. The financial support from
CAPES-PROAP and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development –
CNPq (grant no 427209/2018-8) are also appreciated.

REFERENCES

1. Kharangate, C.R.; Mudawar, I. “Review of computational studies on boiling and

condensations”. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, v.108, pp.1164-1196
(2017).
2. Braz filho, F.A.; Ribeiro, G.B.; et al. “Prediction of subcooled flow boiling characteristics
using two-fluid Eulerian CFD model”. Nuclear Engineering and Design, v.308, pp. 30-37
(2016).
3. Liao, Y.; Krepper, E.; et al. “A baseline closure concept for simulating bubbly flow with
phase change: A mechanistic model for interphase heat transfer coefficient”. Nuclear
Engineering and Design, v.348, pp.1-13 (2019).
4. Liao, Y.; Lucas, D. “Computational modeling of flash boiling flows: A literature survey”.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, v.111, pp. 246-265 (2017).

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

 5. Mathpati, C.S.; Joshi, J.B. “Insight into theories of heat and mass transfer at the solid-
fluid interface using direct numerical simulation and large eddy simulation”. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research, v.46, pp. 8525-8557 (2007).
6. Liao, Y.; Lucas, D. “Evaluation of interfacial heat transfer models for flashing flow with
two-fluid CFD”.Fluids, v.3, pp.38-58 (2018).
7. Friend, W.L.; Metzner, A.B. “Turbulent heat transfer inside tubes and the analogy among
heat, mass, and momentum transfer”. A.I.Ch.E Journal, v.4, pp.393-402 (1958).
8. Chu, I.; Lee, S.; et al. “Experimental evaluation of local bubble parameters of subcooled
boiling flow in a pressurized vertical annulus channel”. Nuclear Engineering and Design,
v.312, p.172-183 (2017).
9. Ansys. Fluent Theory Guide. Ansys, Inc. Canonsburg & United States of America.
(2013).
10. Ranz, W.E.; Marshall, W.R. “Evaporation of droplets: Part I and II.” Chemical
Engineering Progress, v.48, pp.141-148 (1952).
11. Hughmark, G.A. “Mass and heat transfer from rigid spheres”. A.I.Ch.E Journal, v.13, pp.
1219-1221 (1967).
12. Tomiyama, A. “Struggle with computational bubble dynamics”. Third International
Conference on Multiphase Flow, Lyon, France, June 8-12 (1998).
13. Zhang, X. Yu, T.; et al. “Effects of interaction models on upward subcooled boiling flow
in annulus”. Progress in Nuclear Energy, v.105, pp.61-75 (2018).
14. Kurul, N.; Podowski, M.Z. “Multidimensional effects in forced convection subcooled
boiling”. 9th Int. Heat Transfer Conf., Jerusalem, pp. 21-26 (1990).
15. Ferreira, T.P.A.; Ribeiro, G.B. “Numerical evaluation of the wall heat flux partitioning
model of a R134a subcooled boiling flow”. XXI ENFIR, Santos, Brazil, Oct. 21-25
(2019).
16. Kocamustafaogullari, G.; Ishii, M. "Foundation of the Interfacial Area Transport
Equation and its Closure Relations". International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
v.38, pp. 481–493 (1995).
17. Lemmert, M.; Chawla, J.M. “Influence of flow velocity on surface boiling heat
transfer”.Heat Transfer Academic Press and Hemisphere, pp. 237-247 (1977).

INAC 2019, Santos, SP, Brazil.

View publication stats