Simulation of Flooding Waves in Vertical Air-Water Churn Flow Using

Neptune CFD 2.2.0 Code

Matej Tekavčič, Boštjan Končar, Ivo Kljenak

Jožef Stefan Institute
Reactor Engineering Division
Jamova cesta 39
1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia
matej.tekavcic@ijs.si, bostjan.koncar@ijs.si, ivo.kljenak@ijs.si

ABSTRACT

A transient simulation of flooding waves in isothermal air-water churn flow in a vertical pipe
was performed using Neptune CFD 2.2.0 software, which is designed for modelling of multiphase
flows that occur in nuclear reactor systems. The gas and liquid phases are considered immiscible and
incompressible with no mass transfer between them. Two-fluid modelling approach with interface
sharpening method and surface tension model is used. Interfacial momentum transfer is modelled us-
ing the Separated Phases and Large Interface Model options for comparison. Turbulence is modeled
using the SSG (Speziale-Sarkar-Gatski) Reynolds Stress model. The numerical domain consists of an
axisymmetric wedge with the porous wall inlet region representing a vertical pipe experimental test
section. Simulation results are compared with the reported experimental data for wave frequencies.

1 INTRODUCTION

Complex multiphase flow phenomena that occur during thermal-hydraulic processes in a nuclear
reactor could be modelled using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approach. Flooding or counter-
current flow limitation (CCFL) is one of such phenomena that are of particular interest for safety
analyses of the loss-of-coolant (LOCA) accident in pressurized water reactors where steam-water
flows are encountered. After the reflux condenser mode of cooling is established during such an
accident, the upward flow of steam in the central region of a vertical pipe (such as in steam generator
tubes) can limit the downward flow of the water film on the pipe wall. Flooding occurs when the
liquid film flow reverses and cannot penetrate further downwards into the reactor primary system.
Even for the simplest cases, the prediction of onset of flooding conditions is still very uncertain
and more thorough understanding of the triggering mechanisms is needed. Numerical models using
accurate local interface tracking methods can face that challenge. However, they should be supported
by reliable experiments with local measured data.
The focus of this paper is the simulation of large flooding type waves of liquid travelling upwards
that can be observed in the churn flow of air and water in a vertical pipe. The flow mechanism of
churn flow [1] suggests that the origin of these large waves is similar to the wave mechanism of the
flooding phenomenon. Connection between the existence of churn flow and the onset of flooding
phenomena was observed experimentally [2][3]. Present simulation was performed within the EU
NURESAFE project, which aims (among others) at developing and validating advanced CFD tools
and methods for a multiscale and multiphysics analysis and simulation of LOCAs. As a longer term
objective, if a CFD model is able to predict CCFL, it may be used to predict small scale geometrical
effects on flooding limit when experimental data are not available.

916.1
916.1
 916.2
916.2

Experimental data of Barbosa et al. [3] are used as a CFD benchmark case in the present paper.
In this experiment, flooding type wave formation and motion was studied in the churn flow regime
of air and water in a 32 mm internal diameter vertical tube. A special transparent liquid injector was
used which enabled smooth liquid entry similar to that of a porous wall. The experiment provided
qualitative visualization data of wave evolution as well as quantitative data such as wave frequency,
position and velocity. The experimental procedure reported in [3] was the following: in the test
section the desired upflow of air was set. Liquid entered via the transparent injector at a low flow rate
at first. A thin falling film of water was formed flowing in the opposite direction to the gas flow. The
liquid film was drained through the outlet sinter 300 mm below the inlet. With subsequent increase
of the gas flow rate, flooding conditions were achieved. A large liquid wave formed near the liquid
outlet sinter, which was carried upwards (above the liquid inlet) by the gas flow. There, the churn
flow regime was initiated and subsequently more waves were formed and observed near the liquid
inlet.
As reported in [3] there are essentially two regions of flow, one above the liquid inlet with the
churn flow regime and one below the inlet with falling film of liquid flow counter-current to the gas
flow. Only the upper churn flow regime is considered in the present numerical simulation.
Simulations of such flooding waves in the churn flow were previously performed by Da Riva and
Del Col [4], who simulated flows of air-water and R134a vapour-liquid mixtures using the CFD pro-
gram FLUENT. The homogenous mixture model with volume-of-fluid interface tracking method was
used. Reported simulation results in a 32 mm internal diameter pipe agree well with the experimental
data [3] which were used for quantitative and qualitative validation. Simulations of flooding waves
using inhomogeneous two-fluid modelling approach with interface sharpening as implemented in the
ANSYS CFX 13 code were performed [5] and agree well with experimental data [3].
The purpose of the present work is not to try to obtain the best agreement between experimental
and simulation results by trying to use the most appropriate numerical methods, but to simulate the
flow with the Neptune CFD 2.2.0 software as it is.

2 NUMERICAL SIMULATION

A transient simulation of flooding waves in isothermal air-water churn flow in a vertical pipe was
performed using Neptune CFD 2.2.0 [6], which is the latest version of a general purpose computa-
tional fluid dynamics software developed by Electricite de France (EDF) and Commisariat a l’Energie
Atomique (CEA, France) that is available at JSI within the EU NURESAFE project. Neptune CFD
2.2.0 is designed for modelling of multiphase flows that occur in nuclear reactor systems. In the latest
version, a surface tension model and an interface sharpening algorithm were added and were used in
the present work.

2.1 Physical model

In Neptune CFD 2.2.0, the Eulerian multi-field modelling approach is used, which solves bal-
ance equations for each fluid field [7]. Fields are defined by their material properties (water, air),
thermodynamic state (liquid, gas) and morphology (continous, dispersed). In the present simulation,
two continous fluid fields were used: water (liquid), with density ρL = 997.06 kg/m3 and dynamic
viscosity µL = 890.07 · 10−6 Pa/s; and air (gas), with ρG = 1.5549 kg/m3 and µG = 18.483 · 10−6
Pa/s. Pressure in the domain was set to 0.133 MPa (1.33 bar), as in the reference experiment [3].
The flow was assumed isothermal and no heat transfer was modelled. The gas and liquid phases
were assumed to be incompressible with no mass transfer between them. With no mass transfer and

Proceedingsof
Proceedings the International
of the InternationalConference
ConferenceNuclear Energy
Nuclear for New
Energy Europe,
for New Portorož,
Europe, Slovenia,
Portorož, September
Slovenia, 8 ̶ 811,
September 2014
- 11, 2014
 916.3
916.3

heat exchange the code solves only the conservation of mass and momentum equations, one set for
each phase. The momentum balance equation is solved in its non-conservative form [7].
Interface momentum transfer (inter-phase drag force) is modelled using the Separated Phases
(SP) [7] and Large Interface Model (LIM) [8] options for comparison. With Separated Phases, the
software switches between bubble-in-liquid type interphase drag coefficient to a droplet-in-gas type,
depending on the local volume fraction value. The Large Interface Model uses a method to detect a
large interface based on the gradient of liquid volume fraction. A three-cell stencil is used around the
interface to calculate distance from the interface and apply a wall-law like anisotropic drag force that
is different in parallel and perpendicular directions to the interface.
Turbulence is modelled using the SSG (Speziale-Sarkar-Gatski) [9] Reynolds Stress, which is
more suitable for modelling the transient nature of the flow than k − ε model used in simulations from
the literature [4][5]. When Large Interface Model is used as the interphase momentum transfer model,
additional multiphase turbulence modelling is applied in the three-cell stencil near the interface [7].
The interface sharpening method is based on the conservative level-set method [10] and is used
with the following options enabled in case of LIM: allow unsharpened cells, activate surface tension
and LI3C based on volume fraction; and in case of SP: allow unsharpened cells and activate surface
tension. Surface tension is modelled with the Continuum Surface Force model [11]. A constant
surface tension coefficient is prescribed with σ = 0.072 N/m.

2.2 Computational domain

The geometry of the experimental test section shown in Fig. 1 was modelled as a 2D axisym-
metric domain since we assume that coherent ring-type waves are present in the churn flow regime.
Since Neptune CFD works with 3D geometries in Cartesian coordinates, an axisymmetric 5 degree
wedge geometry was used. Meshing was done only in axial and radial directions. Simulations were
run on three hexahedral meshes with densities: 200×25, 400×50 and 800×100 of cells along z and
x axes.
TWO-PHASE
OUTLET

g
SYMMETRY AXIS
LIQUID INLET

120 mm
6 mm

Φ32 mm
PIPE WALL

GAS INLET

Figure 1: Geometry and mesh of the computational domain

2.3 Boundary and initial conditions

Similarly as in the simulations from the literature [4][5], only the water up-flow rate from the
experimental data [3] was considered for the liquid inlet boundary condition. This is discussed in [4]

Proceedingsof
Proceedings the International
of the InternationalConference
ConferenceNuclear Energy
Nuclear for New
Energy Europe,
for New Portorož,
Europe, Slovenia,
Portorož, September
Slovenia, 8 ̶ 811,
September 2014
- 11, 2014
 916.4
916.4

as an adequate approach since we are interested only in the region above the liquid inlet. A constant
mass flow rate was imposed for the liquid inlet and liquid turbulence intensity was set to 10%.
At the gas inlet boundary surface, classical velocity and turbulence profiles in a pipe were im-
posed and were calculated from the gas velocity. Initially, the pipe domain is filled with gas only. In
order to establish velocity and turbulent profiles in the entire pipe domain, the injection of water at
the liquid inlet was delayed by 0.1 s of physical time from the simulation start.
The two-phase outlet surface was modelled as an outlet boundary condition for water and air [12].
Air is allowed to re-enter the domain via the two-phase outlet. The pressure of both phases at the
outlet boundary surface was set to 0.133 MPa (1.33 bar), the same as the reference pressure of the
entire computational domain.

2.4 Solver options

A transient simulation with adaptive time step was performed [12]. The reference time step was
set to 10−5 s. Maximum Courant and Fourier numbers were set to 1 and 10, respectively. Other-
wise, default numerical parameters [12] were used. Simulations were run in parallel using up to 12
processor cores.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Liquid inlet mass flow rates and gas inlet velocity boundary conditions were used for simulated
cases 1 to 3 as shown in Tab. 1 and correspond to experiments [3]. Same cases were previously sim-
ulated using the CFX code [5]. Cases 1 and 2 also correspond to simulations performed in FLUENT
by Da Riva and Del Col [4].

Table 1: Simulated Cases

Sim. Case ṀL (10−3 kg/s) UG (m/s) Exp. Freq. (Hz)

Case 1 27 2.8 9.80
Case 2 32 3.5 10.4
Case 3 51 5.3 15.9

3.1 Visualisation of the flow

Visualisations of the flow in Fig. 2 show the distribution of the liquid (red) and gas (blue) phase
volume fraction over the same time interval for the Case 1 calculated using three different meshes,
Large Interface Model for interface momentum transfer, and surface tension coefficient of 0.072 N/m.
Comparing the results one can observe that the mesh size has a significant impact on the results.
Distribution of the liquid in the pipe over time significantly changes with mesh size. This is
due to the chaotic nature of the churn flow phenomena. It is expected that even a small change in
modelling parameters (such as mesh size) could result in completely different time evolution of the
studied phenomena. By comparing the liquid waves in Fig. 2 at 0.65 s on mesh 200×25, at 0.67 s on
mesh 400×50, and at 0.63 s on mesh 800×100, one can observe that their shape is consistent on all
three meshes. Formation of the waves is shifted in time.
As shown in Fig. 2, there is accumulation of liquid slugs in the center of the pipe, which was not
observed in simulations using CFX [5] or FLUENT [4] codes. Amount of liquid in the center of the

Proceedingsof
Proceedings the International
of the InternationalConference
ConferenceNuclear Energy
Nuclear for New
Energy Europe,
for New Portorož,
Europe, Slovenia,
Portorož, September
Slovenia, 8 ̶ 811,
September 2014
- 11, 2014
 916.5
916.5

pipe decreases with increasing mesh density (smaller cell sizes). This could be an effect of the wedge
geometry and further studies on different type of geometry and mesh will be required to evaluate this
aspect of the present simulation.
Although not presented, similar differences can be observed in the results for liquid volume frac-
tion distribution, that were obtained for simulations of cases 2 and 3 from Tab. 1 with higher gas
velocities and liquid mass flows.
200×25 cells

400×50 cells

800×100 cells

0.60 s 0.61 s 0.62 s 0.63 s 0.64 s 0.65 s 0.66 s 0.67 s

Figure 2: Visualisation of volume fraction (red - water, blue - air) in the test section with different mesh
densities using simulation results for Case 1, UG = 2.8 m/s, ṀL = 27 · 10−3 kg/s, using LIM, σ = 0.072 N/m

3.2 Relative pressure drop

A quantitative analysis can be obtained by calculating the relative pressure drop in the domain
from the average relative pressure over the gas inlet surface (bottom of the domain) and two-phase
outlet surface (top of the domain). Large peaks in the pressure drop are related to the formation of
large amplitude flooding waves. The time evolution of the relative pressure drop in the pipe domain
is shown in the left column of Fig. 3. In the right column of Fig. 3, the linear spectrum (an estimate
of RMS amplitude) of the pressure drop is presented. The reported experimental wave frequency [3]
is marked with a vertical dashed line. Additionaly, the results obtained using Large Interface Model
(LIM) and Separated Phases (SP) options for the inter-phase momentum transfer are presented for
comparison in Fig. 3.

Proceedingsof
Proceedings the International
of the InternationalConference
ConferenceNuclear Energy
Nuclear for New
Energy Europe,
for New Portorož,
Europe, Slovenia,
Portorož, September
Slovenia, 8 ̶ 811,
September 2014
- 11, 2014
 916.6
916.6

One can observe that the results for pressure drop at the start of the simulation (until about 0.2
s, i.e. formation of the first wave) are consistent on all three meshes, but diverge at later simula-
tion times, as was already observed in liquid distribution visualisations in Fig. 2. Consistency also
drops significantlly in Cases 2 and 3 with higher gas velocities and liquid mass flows. Significant
differences between results obtained using LIM and SP options can be observed.

3.3 Wave frequencies

In the experiment [3], the frequency of the waves was obtained by counting their number over
a time period. A similar counting approach was used in the present simulation. Waves can be
counted from the animated time evolution of water volume fraction in the domain, as shown in
Fig. 2. However, the number of waves can also be determined from the peaks in the pressure drop
plots, as shown in Fig. 3 on the left. This is convenient, since such wave counting process can be
automated using a computer script. In addition, the wave frequency can be determined from the
largest peak in the pressure drop spectrum, shown in Fig. 3 on the right. Simulation results for wave
frequencies using both aforementioned methods are shown in Tab. 2 for Case 1 and 2. In Case 3,
wave frequencies could not be determined from the simulation results.

Table 2: Simulation results for wave frequencies on three mesh densities using two inter-phase momentum
transfer models: Separated Phases (SP) and Large Interface Model (LIM). Count. - frequency calculated from
counting the waves; Spect. - frequency determined from pressure drop spectrum (shown in Fig. 3 right); Exp.
- frequency reported in the experiment [3]

Sim. Mesh SP Freq. [Hz] LIM Freq. [Hz] Exp. [Hz]

Case Count. Spect. Count. Spect.
Case 1 200×25 10.1 8.88 10.1 8.88 9.80
400×50 13.0 12.1 13.3 12.1 9.80
800×100 13.2 14.4 11.3 15.5 9.80
Case 2 200×25 12.8 / / 2.21 10.4
400×50 12.8 14.4 13.7 13.3 10.4
800×100 9.99 / 18.2 / 10.4

The following can be observed from the results presented in Tab. 2. In general, the results ob-
tained by the method that uses wave counting to determine their frequency agrees better with ex-
perimental data, than the results obtained with the method where the spectral data for pressure drop
were used (Fig. 3, right column). However, counting the waves is subjective, since there is no clear
criterion on what constiutes a wave other than visual observation.
For Case 1, both inter-phase momentum transfer models (SP, LIM) show consistent results on
meshes with 200×25 and 400×50 cells, with some differences on the finest mesh with 800×100
cells. The frequency calculated on coarse mesh (200×25) agrees with experimental data within 10%
range, but is over predicted on finer meshes (from 15% to 60%).
For Case 2, only results obtained with wave counting were taken into account, since the frequency
could be determined from the spectrum data only for results obtained with the mesh with 400×50
cells. Higher differences between the results obtained using different inter-phase momentum models
and mesh densities can be observed. No wave formation is observed with the coarse mesh (200×25)
when using LIM. Results obtained using the finest mesh (800×100) and SP model agree well with
experimental data, but over predict (by 23%) the frequency when coarser meshes (200×25, 400×50)

Proceedingsof
Proceedings the International
of the InternationalConference
ConferenceNuclear Energy
Nuclear for New
Energy Europe,
for New Portorož,
Europe, Slovenia,
Portorož, September
Slovenia, 8 ̶ 811,
September 2014
- 11, 2014
 916.7
916.7

Pressure Drop Linear Spectrum

2
Case 1: using LIM, σ = 0.072 [N/m ] Case 1: using LIM, σ = 0.072 N/m
4 80
10
Relative Pressure Drop [Pa]

Linear spectrum [Pa RMS]

200x25 200x25
70 400x50
400x50
3 800x100 60 800x100
10
50
2 40
10
30
1 20
10
10
0 0
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Simulation Time [s] Frequency [Hz]
2
Case 1: using SP, σ = 0.072 [N/m ] Case 1: using SP, σ = 0.072 N/m
104 140
Relative Pressure Drop [Pa]

Linear spectrum [Pa RMS]

200x25 200x25
400x50 120 400x50
3 800x100 800x100
10 100
80
2
10
60
1 40
10
20
0 0
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Simulation Time [s] Frequency [Hz]

2
Case 2: using LIM, σ = 0.072 [N/m ] Case 2: using LIM, σ = 0.072 N/m
4 120
10
Relative Pressure Drop [Pa]

Linear spectrum [Pa RMS]

200x25 200x25
400x50 100 400x50
103 800x100 800x100
80
2 60
10
40
1
10
20

100 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Simulation Time [s] Frequency [Hz]
2
Case 2: using SP, σ = 0.072 [N/m ] Case 2: using SP, σ = 0.072 N/m
4 140
10
Relative Pressure Drop [Pa]

Linear spectrum [Pa RMS]

200x25 200x25
400x50 120 400x50
103 800x100 100
800x100

80
102
60
40
101
20
100 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Simulation Time [s] Frequency [Hz]

2
Case 3: using LIM, σ = 0.072 [N/m ] Case 3: using LIM, σ = 0.072 N/m
104 180
Relative Pressure Drop [Pa]

Linear spectrum [Pa RMS]

200x25 160 200x25

400x50 400x50
140
103 800x100 800x100
120
100
102 80
60
101 40
20
0 0
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Simulation Time [s] Frequency [Hz]
2
Case 3: using SP, σ = 0.072 [N/m ] Case 3: using SP, σ = 0.072 N/m
104 120
Relative Pressure Drop [Pa]

Linear spectrum [Pa RMS]

200x25 200x25
400x50 100 400x50
103 800x100 800x100
80

102 60
40
101
20

100 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Simulation Time [s] Frequency [Hz]

Figure 3: Relative pressure drop in the domain over simulation time. Right: Linear spectrum (an estimate of
RMS amplitude) of the relative pressure drop. A vertical dashed line marks the experimental frequency [3]

Proceedingsof
Proceedings the International
of the InternationalConference
ConferenceNuclear Energy
Nuclear for New
Energy Europe,
for New Portorož,
Europe, Slovenia,
Portorož, September
Slovenia, 8 ̶ 811,
September 2014
- 11, 2014
 916.8
916.8

are used. A larger deviation is observed when using LIM, where the frequency is over predicted by
32% to 75%. Only the results obtained with wave counting were taken into account.

4 CONCLUSIONS

A numerical simulation of flooding type waves in isothermal air-water churn flow in vertical
pipe was performed with Neptune CFD 2.2.0 software using the two-fluid modelling approach with
interface sharpening method and surface tension model. Predicted values for liquid volume fraction
are mesh and case dependent. Volume fraction discrepancies between different meshes increase with
higher inlet gas velocity and liquid mass flow rate. Similar conclusions can be drawn for calculated
wave frequencies. Separated Phases and Large Interface Model options used for inter-phase transfer
model were compared. Separated Phases model gives a slightly better agreement with values reported
in the experiment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is partially funded by the Slovenian Research Agency and partially by the European
Commission under the 7th EURATOM Framework Program within the NURESAFE Project contract
No. 323263.

REFERENCES

[1] G. F. Hewitt. Churn and wispy annular flow regimes in vertical gas–liquid flows. Energy &
Fuels, 26(7):4067–4077, 2012.

[2] A. H. Govan, G. F. Hewitt, H. J. Richter, and A. Scott. Flooding and churn flow in vertical
pipes. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 17(1):27 – 44, 1991.

[3] J. R. Barbosa Jr., A. H. Govan, and G. F. Hewitt. Visualisation and modelling studies of churn
flow in a vertical pipe. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 27(12):2105 – 2127, 2001.

[4] E. Da Riva and D. Del Col. Numerical simulation of churn flow in a vertical pipe. Chemical
Engineering Science, 64(17):3753 – 3765, 2009.

[5] M. Tekavčič, B. Končar, and I. Kljenak. Simulation of counter-current gas-liquid churn flow.
In Proceedings of the ASME 2013 Summer Heat Transfer Conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA.,
2013.

[6] A. Guelfi, D. Bestion, M. Boucker, P. Boudier, P. Fillion, M. Grandotto, J.-M. Hérard, E.

Hervieu, and P. Péturaud. Neptune: A new software platform for advanced nuclear thermal
hydraulics. Nuclear Science and Engineering, 156(3):281–324, 2007.

[7] EDF. NEPTUNE CFD version 2.0.1 Theory Guide. EDF R&D, Fluid Dynamics, Power Gen-
eration and Environment Department, Multi-Phase and Reactive Flow Group, June 2013.

[8] P. Coste. A large interface model for two-phase CFD. Nuclear Engineering and Design,
255(0):38 – 50, 2013.

Proceedingsof
Proceedings the International
of the InternationalConference
ConferenceNuclear Energy
Nuclear for New
Energy Europe,
for New Portorož,
Europe, Slovenia,
Portorož, September
Slovenia, 8 ̶ 811,
September 2014
- 11, 2014
 916.9
916.9

[9] S. Sarkar, C. G. Speziale and T. B. Gatski. Modelling the pressure–strain correlation of turbu-
lence: an invariant dynamical systems approach. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 227:245–272,
1991.

[10] E. Olsson and G. Kreiss. A conservative level set method for two phase flow. Journal of
Computational Physics, 210(1):225 – 246, 2005.

[11] J. U. Brackbill, D. B. Kothe, and C. Zemach. A continuum method for modeling surface tension.
Journal of Computational Physics, 100(2):335 – 354, 1992.

[12] EDF. NEPTUNE CFD version 2.0.1 user guide. EDF R&D, Fluid Dynamics, Power Generation
and Environment Department, Multi-Phase and Reactive Flow Group, June 2013.

Proceedingsof
Proceedings the International
of the InternationalConference
ConferenceNuclear Energy
Nuclear for New
Energy Europe,
for New Portorož,
Europe, Slovenia,
Portorož, September
Slovenia, 8 ̶ 811,
September 2014
- 11, 2014