Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29 – 44

www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

The analysis of two-phase flow and heat transfer using a

multidimensional, four field, two-fluid model
Richard T. Lahey, Jr *, Donald A. Drew
Center for Multiphase Research, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA

Received 7 February 1999; accepted 4 July 2000

Abstract

This paper reviews the state-of-the-art in the prediction of multidimensional multiphase flow and heat transfer
phenomena using a four field, two-fluid model. It is shown that accurate mechanistic computational fluid dynamic
(CFD) predictions are possible for a wide variety of adiabatic and diabatic flows using this computational model. In
particular, the model is able to predict the bubbly air/water upflow data of Serizawa (Serizawa, A., 1974. Fluid
dynamic characteristics of two-phase flow. Ph.D. thesis, (Nuclear Engineering), Kyoto University, Japan), the
downflow data of Wang et al. (Wang, S.K., Lee, S.J., Lahey Jr., R.T., Jones, O.C., 1987. 3-D turbulence structure
and phase distribution measurements in bubbly two-phase flows. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 13 (3), 327– 343), the
isosceles triangle upflow data of Lopez de Bertodano et al. (Lopez de Bertodano, M., Lahey Jr., R.T., Jones, O.C.,
1994b. Phase distribution in bubbly two-phase flow in vertical ducts. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 20 (5), 805– 818), the
heated annular R-113 subcooled boiling data of Velidandala, et al. (Velidandla, V., Pulta, S., Roy, P., Kaira, S.P.,
1995. Velocity field in turbulent subcooled boiling flow. ASME Preprint HTD-314, 107– 123) and the R-113 CHF
data of Hino and Ueda (Hino, R., Ueda, T., 1985. Studies on heat transfer and flow characteristics in subcooled
boiling-part 2, flow characteristics. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 11, 283– 297). It can also predict external two-phase flows,
such as those for spreading two-phase jets (Bonetto, F., Lahey Jr., R.T., 1993. An experimental study on air
carryunder due to a plunging liquid jet. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 19 (2), 281– 294) and multiphase flows around the
hull of naval surface ships (Carrica, P.M., Bonetto, F., Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., 1999. A polydispersed model for
bubbly two-phase flow around a surface ship. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 25 (2), 257– 305). © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V.
All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to present a mech-

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-518-2766614; fax: +1-
518-2763055.
E-mail addresses: laheyr@rpi.edu (R.T. Lahey, Jr),
drewd@rpi.edu (D.A. Drew).
anistically-based, four field, two-fluid model for
two-phase flow and heat transfer that can accu-
rately predict the distribution of the continuous
vapor (cv), continuous liquid (cl), dispersed vapor
(dv), and dispersed liquid (dl) fields, and is inher-

0029-5493/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 2 9 - 5 4 9 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 3 3 7 - X
30 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44

ently capable of describing the essential features of
vapor/liquid flows for different flow regimes. Com-
putational fluid dynamic (CFD) predictions using
this model agree with a wide range of experimental
data (Lahey, 1995, 1996). Fig. 1 shows a qualitative
description of the four fields for a once-through
evaporator (i.e. flow boiling in a heated pipe having
a subcooled inlet).
The multidimensional, four field, two fluid model
is given by:
Mass conser6ation ( field-j, phase-k) :
((hjkzk )
+ 9(hjkzk 6̄ jk ) = Yjk +m§ (1)
(t
jk
where, hjk is the volume fraction of field-j of
phase-k, Yjk the volumetric mass transfer rate due
to phase change in field-j of phase-k, and m§ jk is
the mass source of field-j from other fields of
phase-k.
Momentum conser6ation ( field-j, phase-k) :
((hjkzk6̄6 jk )
+ 9(hjkzk6̄6 jk6̄6 jk )+ 9(hjkpjk )
(t
− 9(hjk [~¯ jk + ~ Tjk])− hjkzkg6 − M6 jk − M6 wjk
= Yjk66 i + m§
jk66 jk (2)

Fig. 1. Typical model four field model predictions.

 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44 31

where,

p
v = h− (internal energy)
z

q¦ Tjk = − h%jk 6% jk (turbulent heat flux)

q¦ijk = q¦6 jk: 9Xk (interfacial heat flux)

D
Djk = Xk ~ j :96 j (dissipation)
D
pjk = Xkpj (static pressure) (4)

Fig. 2. Comparison with Serizawa (1974) data, void fraction

distribution.

Fig. 4. Comparison with Serizawa (1974) data, Reynolds stress

distribution.

Fig. 3. Comparison with Serizawa (1974) data, velocity fluctu-

ation distributions.

where ~ Tjk is the Reynolds stress for field-j of

phase-k and M6 jk, M6 wjk are the interfacial and wall
forces (per unit volume), respectively.
Energy conser6ation ( field-j, phase-k) :
((hjkzkh( jk )
+9(hjkzk 6̄ jkh( jk ) +9hjk (q¦6 jk +q¦ Tjk)
(t
Dpjk
− hjkq§
jk −Djk − i =Yjkvi +m§
− q¦ijkA§ jkvjk
Dt Fig. 5. Comparison with Wang et al. (1987) downflow data,
(3) void fraction distribution.
 
32 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44

hcl
Dkcl
= 9 hcl
T n
9kcl + hcl[Pcl − mcl]+ hclbk
Dt |k
(5)
where,
1
kcl = 6% cl: 6% cl
2


Turbulent dissipation

hcl
Dmcl
= 9 hcl
T n
9mcl + hclCm 1
Pclmcl
Dt |k kcl
m 2cl
− hclCm 2 + hclbm (6)
kcl
where Sato and Sekoguchi (1975) gives the two-
phase turbulent viscosity as:
k 2cl
Fig. 6. Comparison with Lopez de Bertodano (1992) data, T = Cv + 1.2Rdvhdv6 r (7)
void fraction distribution. mcl
and,
6 r = 6̄ dv − 6̄ cl.
For bubbly flows, the source term for turbulent
kinetic energy, bk is (Lee et al., 1989):
kcl 66 3
bk = bm = Cphdv r , (8)
Cm 2mcl Ddv
where Cp = 0.25 for potential flow around a
sphere (Lopez de Bertodano, 1992).
Similar turbulent transport equations can be
written for the dispersed phase (Alajbegovic et al.,
1999).

Fig. 7. Comparison with Lopez de Bertodano (1992) data,

average axial velocity distribution.

It has been found (Lopez de Bertodano et al.,

1994a) that k – m models, which have been widely
used in CFD codes to describe turbulence in
single-phase flows, can be extended to two-phase
flows. For example, in bubbly flows the turbu-
lence transport equations for the continuous liq-
uid (cl) field are given by: Fig. 8. Void fraction profiles (Bonetto and Lahey, 1993),
Turbulent kinetic energy measured (symbols) and predicted (lines).
 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44 33

Fig. 9. Liquid velocity profiles (Bonetto and Lahey, 1993), measured (circles) and predicted (line).

2. Discussion where CD is an appropriate drag coefficient.

To derive an expression for the interfacial area
2.1. Closure density, A§i , let us consider the Boltzmann trans-
port equation for the dispersed phase (dv). In
In order to achieve closure we must be able to particular, the Boltzmann transport equation for
express all the parameters and variables in Eqs. bubbles of volume u is given by Valenti et al.
(1) –(8) in terms of the state variables (i.e. the (1991):
dependent variables) of the two-fluid model. We
note that the jump condition for momentum (f
+ 9 · 6f=
df
+
df ) ) (12)
across a cl– dv interface can be written as: (t dt c dt b

M6 dv + M6 cl =9[hdv ~ dv] (9) where fdu is the probability of having a bubble of

volume u between u and u+du, and the coales-
where ~ dv is the stress induced by surface tension,
cence (c) and breakup (b) terms are given by
and the force densities on the liquid and vapor
Drew and Passman (1998):
side of the interface are given by M6 cl and M6 dv,
respectively.
It is convenient to partition the liquid interfa-
df ) =−
& 
c(u%, u)f(u%, x6 , t)f(u, x6 , t)du%
dt c

&
0
cial force density into drag (D) and non-drag
(ND) terms. For example, for bubbly flow we 1 u

have: + f c(u%u− u%)f(u%, x6 , t)f(u− u%, x6 , t)du%

2

) &
0

M6 cl = M6 (D)
cl +M6 (ND)
cl (10) df 
=− b(u%, u)f(u, x, t)du%

&
For the drag force we can write: dt b 0
u
1
M6 (D)
dv = − M6 (D)
cl = − zclCD6 r6 rA§
i (11) + b(u%, u− u%)f(u%, x, t)du% (13)
8 0
34 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44

Fig. 10. (a) Bubbly two-phase flow over a flat plate (Moursali et al., 1995); (b) the prediction of the near-wall void distribution (at
x =1.0 m).
 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44 35

Fig. 11. Predictions for subcooled boiling R-113 in an annulus (Velidandla et al., 1995).

Fig. 12. Comparison of four field model predictions with experimental results for heated SUVA flow in a high aspect ratio duct
(Lahey, 1998).
36 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44

Fig. 13. Predictions of the subcooled DNB data (Hino and Ueda, 1985) R-113, G =1239 kg m − 2 s; p =1474 kPa; Tsat =332 K;
Tsub = −10 K

Here, c and b are the coalescence and breakup Millies et al. (1996) and Wu et al. (1998) for a two
rate kernels, respectively. field, two-fluid model.
If we multiply Eq. (12) by the area of a bubble This approach has also been applied to bubble
of volume u, Au =4y(3u/4y)2/3, and integrate over clusters for the analysis of the bubbly/slug flow
all volumes, u, we obtain (Drew and Passman, regime transition (Kalkach-Navarro et al., 1994).
1998): The wall force on the dispersed vapor field,
(A§ M6 w
dv, is given by Antal et al. (1991), Lopez de
i 6 i ) =SA
i
+9 · (A§ (14) Bertodano (1992):
(t
M6 wdv = − M6 wcl
!   n"
where SA is the generalized interfacial area

&  ) ) n 
source/sink term, which for bubbly flow is: hdvzcl 6 axial · 6 axial R

= max 0, Cw1 + Cw2 dv
df df 3u 2/3 Rdv y
SA = 4y + du (15)
0 dt c dt b 4y zcl
× lw n w − CwB h Žv 6 l (16)
Formulations for SA have been proposed by 200Rdv dv cl dv w
 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44 37

Fig. 14. Phase separation for a horizontal branch. Fig. 16. Phase separation for a vertical branch below junction.

Fig. 15. Phase separation for a vertical branch above junction. Fig. 17. Pressure drop in a Tee junction.
38 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44

Fig. 18. Sound speed vs. frequency (effect of bubble size, Ruggles, 1987).

where, n6 w is a unit vector which is normal to the lar, we may solve for the potential flow velocity
wall of the conduit, and, field around the dispersed phase using,

y= (x6 −x6 w)n6 w 92ƒ= 0 (17)

66 axial =66 r − [n6 w · 66 r]n6 w

Cw1 = − 0.104 −0.0666 r CwB =1.5

Cw2 =0.147 lw =
!1.0, y 5Rdv
0.0, otherwise

The first term on the right hand side (RHS) of

Eq. (16) is a force which is normal to the wall and
the second term on the RHS is a force parallel to
the wall. These forces are important in the nodes
adjacent to the wall.
It should be noted that, in accordance with
standard practice for single-phase flow CFD eval-
uations, the Law of the Wall was used rather than
a no slip boundary condition. This saves signifi-
cant computer time and its validity for two-phase
flows has been verified by Marié (1987) and
Vasallo (1999). The specific implementation of the
two-phase Law of the Wall has been given by
Lopez de Bertodano et al. (1994b) and thus will
not be repeated here.
Next, we may use inviscid flow theory to derive Fig. 19. Sound speed vs. frequency (effect of void fraction,
many of the interfacial transfer laws. In particu- Ruggles, 1987).
 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44 39

Fig. 20. Attenuation vs. frequency (Ruggles, 1987).

and obtain the velocity from, + hdvzclC2È6 r · (96 r + 6 r9)

6 cl = − 9ƒ (18) +(9 · 6 r)6 rÉ +bszcl 6 r · 6 r9hdv
and the pressure field by using the Bernoulli + aszcl 6 r · 9hdv 6 r + hdvzclCrot 6 r × 9
Equation,

p− po = − zcl
 (ƒ
+ 9ƒ2
n (19)
×6̄ dv + hdvzclCL 6 r96̄ cl + hdvzclCL 6 r
× 9× 6̄ cl + CTDzclkcl9hdv (23)
(t
For the particular case of bubbly flow, this
analysis yields (Ruggles et al., 1989):
pcli = pcl − (1 − hdw )Cpzcl 6 r · 6 r
 3
+zcl RbR8 b + R: 2
n (20)
2
where, R: b = DvRb/Dt, and for spherical bubbles,
2| R:
pdvi −pcli = +4vcl b (21)
Rb Rb
It should be noted that if the bubbles do not
grown or shrink, Eq. (20) reduces to the well
known quasi-static closure law:
pcli − pcl = − (1 − hdw ) Cpzcl 6 r · 6 r (22)
We may also ensemble average the pressure at
the interface to obtain the interfacial force den-
sity, M6 (ND)
cl
. Using Eqs. (17) – (19), Arnold et al.
(1989) and Lopez de Bertodano (1992) have pro-
posed that for spherical bubbles:

M6 (ND)
cl = −pcli 9hdv +hdvzclCvm
D6̄ dv D6̄ cl
−
n
Dt Dt
Fig. 21. Pressure plug propagation speed vs. global void
+ hdvzclC1 6 r96 r fraction (Ruggles, 1987).
40 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44

It is significant to note that there are no other

arbitrary constants in this model, that is, for
spherical bubbles:
1 1 5
Cvm = CL + Crot = , CL = Crot = , C1 = ,
2 4 4
1 9 9 3
Cp = , C2 = − , as = − , bs = .
4 20 20 20
(24)
It should be noted that in real fluids, Cp ]1/4
(Lopez de Bertodano et al., 1994b; Park et al.,
1998), and the lateral lift coefficient, CL, is a
Fig. 22. Sound speed vs. frequency (data of Silberman, 1957).
function of Reynolds number. In particular, it

  n
may be given by Moraga et al. (1999):
ReRe9
CL = 0.12− 0.2 exp −


36×104

Fig. 23. Attenuation vs. frequency (data of Silberman, 1957).
We note that the second term on the RHS of
this equation is the virtual mass force, the next to
the last term is called the lateral lift force (Drew
and Lahey, 1990) and the last term is the turbu-
lent dispersion term. This term was phenomeno-
logically derived by Lopez de Bertodano (1992),
and CTD is a free parameter which various investi-
gators have found to be in the range 0.1 –1.0. For
consistency CTD =1.0 was used in the calculations
presented in the next section. Other forms of Eq.
(23) and the turbulent dispersion force have been
derived (Drew and Passman, 1998) but they will
not be discussed herein.
× exp
ReRe9 n (25)
3× 107
where Re = 6rDdv/w, Re9 = …D2dv/w and … is the
local vorticity (i.e. velocity gradient) of the contin-
uous (liquid) phase. It is interesting to note that
Eq. (25) has a sign reversal at large enough
Reynolds numbers, and for most of the calcula-
tions presented herein this correlation yields CL #
0.1.
For dilute two-phase flows the Reynolds stress
tensor for the continuous phase can be deter-
mined by superposition of the shear-induced (SI)
and particle-induced (PI) Reynolds stresses (The-
ofanous and Sullivan, 1982; Lopez de Bertodano
et al., 1994b),
~ Tcl = ~ Tcl(SI) + ~ Tcl(PI) (26)
Superposition has been verified experimentally
for dilute bubbly flows by Lance and Bataille
(1991), for h5 1%, and Theofanous and Sullivan
(1982), for h510%.
Using inviscid flow theory and cell model aver-
aging (Nigmatulin, 1979), we obtain,
hcl ~ Tcl(PI) = − hdvzcl[acl 6 r 6 r + bcl 6 r · 6 r I] (27)
where, for spherical bubbles, acl = 1/20, and,
bcl = 3/20.
The shear-induced Reynolds stress of the con-
tinuous phase, ~ Tcl(SI)/zcl = − 6 %cl6 %cl = −2/3
kcl A+ T [96̄ cl + 6̄ cl9], can be evaluated using
 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44 41

the kcl and the T from Eqs. (5) and (7), and an the wall of the conduit. Similarly, Fig. 5 shows
algebraic stress law given by Rodi (1984), that the same model predicts the bubbly air/water
A cl =

Æ
Ã(C l +s +i− 1) + 3 
6% 6%
(63 i 3  6 %16 %3
(6 3 (6 i
+6%26%3 3
 0
Ç
Ã
à Cl C l 1 3 (x1 mcl 2Cl (x 2 (x 1 mcl Ã
Ã
Ã
3 
6% 6%
(6 3 (6 i
+ 6%26%3 3
 (Cl + s+ i −1) 3
+
 6 %26 %3

(63 i
0
Ã
Ã
2C l 1 3 (x 2 (x 1 mcl Cl Cl (x2 mcl
 
à Ã
à 2(s+ i− 1) 3 (63 (63 iÃ
à 0 0 − +1 − +6%26%3
mcl Ã
6 %16 %3
Cl Cl (x1 (x2
È É
(28)
where, i = 0.1091, s = 0.7636, and Cl = 1.5
(Lahey et al., 1993).
Finally, it should be noted that the force re- downflow pipe data of Wang et al. (1987), in
quired to hold the bubbles spherical results in a which the dispersed vapor volume fraction peaks
stress in the dispersed phase given by Park et al. at the center of the vertical pipe. This is a direct
(1998), consequence of a change in the sign of the lateral
lift force in Eq. (23).
~ dv(x, t)

=zcl −
 9 3
(6̄ cl −6̄ dv)(6̄ cl −6̄ dv) + 6̄ cl − 6̄ dv2I
20 20
+(pdvi −pcli )I
Significantly, the four field, two-fluid model
presented herein is fully self-consistent, is well
posed (Park et al., 1998), and unlike many other
two-fluid models, satisfies the Second Law of
Thermodynamics (Arnold et al., 1990). Next, let
us consider the assessment of this model against
some of the available experimental data. Similar
assessments of the model against solid/fluid data
(including simulated microgravity conditions)
have been performed by Alajbegovic et al. (1999),
but these will not be discussed herein.
2.2. Model assessment (steady state)
The four field, two-fluid model has been evalu-
ated using various CFD solvers (e.g. PHOENICS
and CFX), and good agreement with the available
experimental data was found without ‘tuning’ the
parameters in the model.
Figs. 2–4 show good agreement with the bub-
bly air/water upflow pipe data of Serizawa (1974).
Note that the model properly predicts the peaking
of the dispersed vapor volume fraction (hdv) near
n Figs. 6 and 7 show that the four field, two-fluid
model is also capable of predicting data in a
complex geometry conduit. In particular, the
model is able to predict the air/water bubbly
(29)
upflow data of Lopez de Bertodano (1992) which
was taken in an isosceles triangle.
Not all two-phase flows of interest are conduit
flows. For example, a plunging liquid jet can
entrain air bubbles resulting in a spreading two-
phase jet in a liquid pool (Bonetto and Lahey,
1993). Significantly, as can be seen in Figs. 8 and
9, the same multidimensional four field, two-fluid
model which predicts various conduit flows, also
predicts spreading two-phase jet data (i.e. a ‘free
field’ two-phase flow). Moreover, as can be seen
in Fig. 10, this model also predicts external two-
phase flows over solid surfaces, and it has been
used to successfully predict two-phase flow phe-
nomena around naval surface ships (Carrica et al.,
1998, 1999); in particular, the effect of entrained
air bubbles on the formation of ship wakes.
It should be clear that a multidimensional, four
field, two-fluid model is capable of predicting a
wide variety of adiabatic two-phase flows. In ad-
dition, the same model can also predict diabatic
two-phase flows. In particular, as can be seen in
Fig. 11, this model is able to predict the R-113
subcooled boiling data of Velidandla et al. (1995),
42 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44

which were taken in an internally heated annular model to predict transient phenomena. The multi-
test section. Moreover, as shown in Fig. 12, it can dimensional, four field, two-fluid model presented
also predict boiling SUVA data taken in a heated previously can be integrated in the lateral direc-
rectangular test section (Lahey, 1998). We note in tion to give the corresponding one dimensional
Fig. 12 that numerous flow regimes, and their two-fluid model. This can be written in matrix
transition, are predicted, and the predictions of form as.
the two-phase pressure drop does not require any
(u (u
separate empirical correlations (i.e. the predicted A +B 1 =C 1 u+ c 2 (30)
wall shear was used to determine the pressure (t (z
drop). If the two-fluid model is valid for transients one
In addition, as can be seen in Fig. 13, when a should also be able to predict wave propagation
mechanistic wall heat transfer model for the ebul- phenomena in two-phase flows.
lition cycle is combined with the four field, two- Eq. (30) may be linearized, resulting in:
fluid model (Lahey, 1996), it was able to predict
(Alajbegovic et al., 1997) the R-113 critical heat (lu (lu
A0 + B 10 =C%1 lu (31)
flux (CHF) data of Hino and Ueda (1985). Be- (t (z 0

cause the local countercurrent flow limitation where,

(CCFL), the mismatch between the liquid phase
evaporation rate and the vapor condensation rate, 
C%1 = C 10 + u o
    n
(C 1
−
(B 1 (u
.
and the potential for bubble coalescence were 0 (u o (u o (z o
explicitly modeled, it was possible to mechanisti-
Next we assume a perturbation of the form,
cally predict (Lahey, 1996) the measured onset of
departure from nucleate boiling (DNB). It should lu =u%ei(kz − …t) (32)
be stressed that this was accomplished without the
need for empirical CHF correlations. where k= 2y/u is the wave number and …= 2yf is
In addition, the same two-fluid model has been the angular frequency of the system.
found to be able to predict phase separation in Combining Eqs. (31) and (32) we obtain,
branching conduits (Lahey, 1992). For example, È − i…A 0 + ikB 10 − C%10Éu%= 0. (33)
Figs. 14–17 demonstrate the model’s predictive
capabilities for a Tee junction in which the side Since u%" 0, the so-called dispersion relation of
branch has three different orientations. the two-fluid model is given by.
CFD evaluations using a multidimensional two-
fluid model represents a significant breakthrough
   
det A 0
…
−
i
C% − B 10 = 0
n (34)
in our ability to analyze multiphase flows and k k 10
clearly demonstrates the usefulness of mechanis- It is interesting to note that two of the roots of
tic, multidimensional two-fluid models for phase Eq. (34) yield the two-phase sonic velocity (C2€ ).
change system design and evaluation.
While the discussions given above have focused […/Re(k)]+
p − […/Re(k)]p 
−
C2€ = (35)
on bubbly flow (with a spherical dispersed phase), 2
similar predictive capabilities are possible for As can be seen in Figs. 18–23, the two-fluid
other flow regimes (e.g. see Fig. 12) using a multi- model agrees quite well with the available data for
dimensional, four field, two-fluid model and the sonic wave propagation in bubbly two-phase
appropriate, flow regime specific, closure laws flows.
(Antal et al., 1998). It can also be noted that the high frequency
limit (i.e. k“ ) of Eq. (34) yields,
2.3. Model assessment (transients)
  n
det A 0
…
− B 10 = 0 (36)
Next, let us consider the ability of the two-fluid k
 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44
where the roots, (…/k), can be recognized as being
the eigenvalues of the system of equations. When
a critical flow condition exists one of the roots of
Eq. (36) will vanish (i.e. […/k]−p =u2€ −C2€ = 0),
thus the choking condition is given by,
det[B 10]=0.
It has been found (Ruggles et al., 1989) that Eq.
(37) predicts critical flow, without the need for
separate critical flow models.
Similarly, two other roots of Eq. (34) yield the
void waves celerities, C 9
h . It has been found that
these roots agree with the available void wave
data (Park et al., 1998) which further supports the
physical basis of the two-fluid model. Finally, a
nonlinear void wave analysis has been performed
using Eq. (30) and it has been shown that the
experimentally observed solitons and breaking
void waves are also well predicted by the two-fluid
model (Lahey, 1991; Park et al., 1998).
3. Conclusion
It appears that a properly formulated two-fluid
model can predict a wide variety of steady and
transient multiphase flow phenomena. Moreover,
data of the type discussed herein can be used to
assess the closure laws used in two-fluid models
for various flow regimes. It is hoped that this
paper will motivate other researchers to use, and
further develop, multidimensional CFD method-
ology for the analysis of multiphase flow and heat
transfer phenomena in systems and processes of
practical concern.
Appendix A. Nomenclature
A§i interfacial area density (m−1)
hjk volume fraction of field-j of phase-k
hjk enthalpy of field-j of phase-k
kjk turbulent kinetic energy of field-j of
phase-k
M6 jk interfacial force density of field-j of
phase-k
mjk turbulent dissipation of field-j of phase-k
zk density of phase-k
43
6̄ jk velocity of field-j of phase-k
pjk static pressure of field-j of phase-k
~ Tjk Reynolds stress of field-j of phase-k
Rb bubble radius (Ddv/2)
q§ jk volumetric heat source in field-j of
phase-k
(37)
~¯ jk viscous shear stress tensor of field-j of
phase-k
vjk internal energy of field-j of phase-k
g gravity
u bubble volume
Pjk turbulence production in field-j of
phase-k
6%jk velocity fluctuations in field-j of phase-k
Dp pressure drop
6r relative velocity, (6̄ dv−6̄ cl)
References
Alajbegovic, A., Kurul, N., Podowski, M.Z., Lahey, R.T.,
Drew, D.A., 1997. A new mechanistic model for critical
heat flux in forced-convection subcooled boiling. Proceed-
ings of NURETH-8. Kyoto, Japan, September 30 –Octo-
ber 4.
Alajbegovic, A., Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1999. An analy-
sis of phase distribution and turbulence in dispersed parti-
cle/liquid flows. Chem. Eng. Commun. 174, 85 – 133.
Antal, S.P., Lahey, R.T., Jr, Flaherty, J.E., 1991. Analysis of
phase distribution in fully developed laminar bubbly two-
phase flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 17 (5), 553– 682.
Antal, S., Kurul, N., Podowski, M., Lahey Jr., R.T., 1998.
The development of multidimensional modeling capabili-
ties for annular flows. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Multiphase Flow (ICMF). Lyon, France,
June 8 – 12.
Arnold, G., Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1989. Derivation of
constitutive equations for interfacial force and Reynolds
stress for a suspension of spheres using ensemble averag-
ing. Chem. Eng. Commun. 86, 43 – 54.
Arnold, G., Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1990. An assessment
of multiphase flow models using the Second Law of Ther-
modynamics. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 6 (3), 481– 494.
Bonetto, F., Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1993. An experimental study on
air carryunder due to a plunging liquid jet. Int. J. Multi-
phase Flow 19 (2), 281– 294.
Carrica, P.M., Bonetto, F., Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., 1998. A
polydispersed approach to the two-phase flow around a
ship. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mul-
tiphase Flow (ICMF). Lyon, France, June 8 – 12.
Carrica, P.M., Bonetto, F., Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., 1999. A
polydispersed model for bubbly two-phase flow around a
surface ship. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 25 (2), 257– 305.
44 R.T. Lahey, Jr, D.A. Drew / Nuclear Engineering and Design 204 (2001) 29–44
Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., 1990. Some supplemental analysis
concerning the virtual mass and lift force on a sphere in a
rotating and straining flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 16 (6),
1127– 1130.
Drew, D.A., Passman, S.L., 1998. Theory of multicomponent
fluids. In: Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer, Berlin.
Hino, R., Ueda, T., 1985. Studies on heat transfer and flow
characteristics in subcooled boiling — part 2, flow charac-
teristics. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 11, 283–297.
Kalkach-Navarro, S., Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1994.
Analysis of bubbly/slug flow regime transition. Nucl. Eng.
Des. 151, 15–39.
Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1991. Void wave propagation phenomena in
two-phase flow. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. J. 37 (1), 123– 135.
Lahey, R.T., Jr (Ed.), 1992. Boiling Heat Transfer — Modern
Developments and Advances. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Lahey, R.T., Jr, Lopez de Bertodano, M., Jones, O.C., Jr, 1993.
Phase distribution in complex geometry conduits. Nucl. Eng.
Des. 141, 177–201.
Lahey Jr., R.T., 1995. The CFD analysis of multidimensional
phenomena in multiphase flow. Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Multiphase Flow (ICMF-2).
Kyoto, Japan.
Lahey, R.T., 1996. A CFD analysis of multidimensional two-
phase flow and heat transfer phenomena. In: Bergles-
Festschrift, A.E. (Ed.), Process, Enhanced and Multiphase
Heat Transfer. Begell House Inc, New York.
Lahey Jr., R.T., 1998. A CFD analysis of multidimensional
two-phase flow and heat transfer using a four field, two-fluid
model. In: Proceedings of the 13th US National Congress
on Applied Mechanics. University of Florida, June 21 – 26.
Lance, M., Bataille, J., 1991. Turbulence in the liquid phase of
a uniform bubbly air–water flow. J. Fluid Mech. 222,
95 – 118.
Lee, S.-J., Lahey, R.T., Jr, Jones, O.C., 1989. The prediction of
two-phase turbulence and phase distribution using a k – m
model. Jpn. J. Multiphase Flow 3 (4), 335–368.
Lopez de Bertodano, M., 1992. Turbulent bubbly two-phase
flow in a triangular duct. Ph.D. thesis (Nuclear Engineering),
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Lopez de Bertodano, M., Jones, O.C., Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1994a.
Development of a k–m model for bubbly two-phase flow. J.
Fluids Eng. 116 (1), 128–134.
Lopez de Bertodano, M., Lahey, R.T., Jr, Jones, O.C., 1994b.
Phase distribution in bubbly two-phase flow in vertical
ducts. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 20 (5), 805–818.
Marié, J.L., 1987. Modeling of the skin friction and heat transfer
in turbulent two-component bubbly flow in pipes. Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 113, 309–325.
Millies, M., Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1996. A first order
relaxation model for the prediction of the local interfacial
area density in two-phase flows. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 22
(6), 1073– 1104.
Moraga, F.J., Bonetto, F.J., Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1999. Lateral
forces on spheres in turbulent uniform shear flow. Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 25, 1321– 1372.
Moursali, E., Marié, J.L., Bataille, J., 1995. An upward bubbly
boundary layer along a vertical flat plate. Int. J. Multiphase
Flow 21, 107– 117.
Nigmatulin, R.I., 1979. Spatial averaging in the mechanics of
heterogeneous and dispersed systems. Int. J. Multiphase
Flow 5, 333– 385.
Park, J.-W., Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1998. The analysis
of void wave propagation in adiabatic monodispersed bub-
bly two-phase flows using an ensemble-averaged two-fluid
model. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 24 (7), 1205– 1244.
Rodi, W., 1984. IAHR/AIRH Monograph.
Ruggles, A.E., 1987. The propagation of pressure perturbations
in bubbly air/water flow. Ph.D. thesis (Nuclear Engineering),
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Ruggles, A.E., Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1989. The relation-
ship between standing waves, pressure pulse propagation
and critical flow rate in two-phase mixtures. J. Heat Transfer
111, 467– 473.
Sato, Y., Sekoguchi, K., 1975. Liquid velocity distribution in
two-phase bubble flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 2, 79–95.
Serizawa, A., 1974. Fluid dynamic characteristics of two-phase
flow. Ph.D. thesis, (Nuclear Engineering), Kyoto University,
Japan.
Silberman, E., 1957. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 29, 925.
Theofanous, T.G., Sullivan, J.P., 1982. Turbulence in two-phase
dispersed flows. J. Fluid Mech. 116, 343– 362.
Valenti, S., Clausse, A., Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., Jr, 1991. A
contribution to the mathematical modeling of bubbly/slug
flow regime transition. Chem. Eng. Commun. 102, 69–85.
Vasallo, P., 1999. Near wall structure in vertical air/water
annular flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 25 (3), 459– 476.
Velidandla, V., Pulta, S., Roy, P., Kaira, S.P., 1995. Velocity
field in turbulent subcooled boiling flow. ASME Preprint
HTD-314, pp. 107– 123.
Wang, S.K., Lee, S.J., Lahey, R.T., Jones, O.C., 1987. 3-D
turbulence structure and phase distribution measurements in
bubbly two-phase flows. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 13 (3),
327– 343.
Wu, Q.S., Ishii, M., Beus, S.G., 1998. One-group interfacial area
transport in vertical bubbly flow. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
41 (8 – 9), 1103– 1112.