0
Research Papers: Evaporation, Boiling, and Condensation

Direct Numerical Simulation of Condensing Stratified Flow

[+] Author and Article Information
Djamel Lakehal

 Institute of Energy Technology, ETH Zurich, Switzerland; ASCOMP GmbH, Zurich, Switzerlandlakehal@ascomp.ch

Marco Fulgosi

 Institute of Energy Technology, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

George Yadigaroglu

 Institute of Energy Technology, ETH Zurich, Switzerland; ASCOMP GmbH, Zurich, Switzerland

J. Heat Transfer 130(2), 021501 (Feb 06, 2008) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2789723 History: Received February 14, 2007; Revised July 24, 2007; Published February 06, 2008

The paper discusses the results of a detailed direct numerical simulation study of condensing stratified flow, involving a sheared steam-water interface under various thermal and turbulent conditions. The flow system comprises a superheated steam and subcooled water flowing in opposite directions. The transport equations for the two fluids are alternately solved in separate domains and then coupled at the interface by imposing mass, momentum, and energy jump conditions with phase change. The effects induced by changes in the interfacial shear were analyzed by comparing the relevant statistical flow properties. New scaling laws for the normalized heat transfer coefficient (HTC), K+, have been derived for both the steam and liquid phases. The steam-side law is found to compare with the passive-scalar law obtained hitherto by (Lakehal(2003, “Direct Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Heat Transfer Across a Mobile, Sheared Gas-Liquid Interfaces  ,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 125, pp. 1129–1139) in that HTC scales with Pr35. A close inspection of the transfer rates on the liquid side reveals a consistent relationship between K+, the local wave deformation or curvature and the interfacial shear stress. The surface divergence model of Banerjee (2004, “Surface Divergence Models for Scalar Exchange Between Turbulent Streams  ,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 30(8), pp. 965–977) is found to apply in the liquid phase, too.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Sketch of the simulated vapor-liquid stratified flow

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

jpdf of normalized interfacial shear stress and HTC (Case R2)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Instantaneous contours of the normalized HTC and of the interfacial shear stress in the vapor phase

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Instantaneous contours of the normalized HTC and of the interfacial shear stress in the liquid phase

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Probability distribution of “strongly coherent” uw¯ events versus normalized HTC at the interface. Lines and symbols are used to identify R1 and R2, respectively. (—) and (●), I quadrant events; (---) and (◻), II quadrant events; (⋯) and (◇), III quadrant events; (-∙-) and (▵), IV quadrant events.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Probability distribution of strongly coherent uw¯ events versus normalized HTC at the interface. Lines and symbols are used to identify C11 and C12, respectively. (—) and (●), I quadrant events; (---) and (black ◻), II quadrant events; (⋯) and (black ◇), III quadrant events; (-∙-) and (black ▵), IV quadrant events.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Probability distribution of strongly coherent uw¯ events versus normalized HTC at the interface. Lines and symbols are used to identify C21 and C22, respectively. (—) and(●), I quadrant events; (- - -) and (black ◻), II quadrant events; (⋯) and (black ◇), III quadrant events; (-∙-) and (black ▵), IV quadrant events.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Vapor-side dimensional heat transfer velocity plotted versus the shear and friction velocities

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Liquid-side dimensional heat transfer velocity versus the shear and friction velocities

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Effect of liquid subcooling and interfacial waviness

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of the liquid-side DNS data with other correlations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of the surface term with the dilation contribution to the Hunt–Graham blocking theory

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

HTC parametrization by means of the SDM model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Comparison of the computed interfacial friction factors with the values obtained using Eq. 16

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In