ENU 4134 – Pressure Drop Models

D. Schubring

Fall 2011
Learning Objectives
I 1-e-i Use empirical models (including those not based on the
HEM or SFM) to estimate pressure drop
I 1-e-ii Develop a correlation for adiabatic, two-component
two-phase pressure drop and compare to literature models (in
project)
I 1-e-iii Identify issues related to experiments on two-phase
flow (mostly in project)
I 1-e-iv Estimate design requirements and propose system for
acquisition of pressure drop data (in project)
I 5-b Use correlations and/or models to analyze problems in
nuclear thermal hydraulics
I 5-c Use appropriate software (EES, TK Solver;
scripting/compiled languages) to automate evaluation of
correlations for a range of conditions or for more complex
problems such as single-channel analysis (mostly in project)
I 5-d Identify assumptions used in development of models and
critically evaluate the applicability of these assumptions for
the TH conditions being modeled
Remarks
Course:
I In the next 5-6 weeks, the emphasis will shift from
lecture-driven theoretical understanding to problem-driven
empirical analysis.
I Topics covered: pressure drop (these notes, HW 3, Project 1);
two-phase convective heat transfer (HW 4 and 5); and nuclear
heat generation/transfer and SCA (HW 6, Project 2).
Pressure Drop Models Considered:
I The total number of published pressure drop models for
straight pipe flow easily extends into the 100’s.
I Different correlations are advised for steam-water (most
nuclear-relevant), refrigerants (de-emphasized in this course),
and two-component flows (e.g., air-water).
I Most industrial applications are pure-fluid; most experiments
are two-component (why is this?).
Pressure Drop Models Outline

I Lockhart-Martinelli (mostly two-component)

I Müller-Steinhagen and Heck (two-component or refrigerants)
I Review of HEM (pure fluids, steam-water at high G )
I Martinelli-Nelson (steam-water at low-to-moderate G )
I Armand-Treschev (steam-water, BWR-type conditions)
The text also provides the models of Thom (similar to M-N),
Baroczy (similar to M-N), Jones, and (one of the correlations by)
Chisholm. These are no longer frequently used; they are not
required for this course.
Lockhart-Martinelli Model

Assumptions:
1. The pressure (gradient) of the two fluids is equal at any axial
position (i.e., pl (z) = pv (z))
2. Single-phase relations can be applied within each phase
Lockhart-Martinelli Parameter

(dP/dz)lfric
X2 = (1)
(dP/dz)vfric

l
Gm2 (1 − x)2
  
dP fl
= (2)
dz De 2ρl
 fric
v  2 2
dP fv Gm x
= (3)
dz fric De 2ρv

Note: These are not calculated by assuming all the flow is as liquid
(or gas).
Lockhart-Martinelli Parameter (2)

Most often, a turbulent smooth-tube relation is used to compute

X 2 . When this is done, Xtt2 is usually used as the symbol. The
most frequent relation is the McAdams (seen below, n = 0.2)

Rel−0.2 Gm2 (1 − x)2

 l  
dP
= 0.184 (4)
dz fric De 2ρl
Gm (1 − x)De
Rel = = (5)
µl
v
Re −0.2 Gm2 x 2
  
dP
= 0.184 v (6)
dz fric De 2ρv
Gm xDe
Rev = = (7)
µv
Lockhart-Martinelli Parameter (3)

0.2 
1 − x 2 ρv
   
Rev
Xtt2 = (8)
Rel x ρl
0.2 
1 − x 2 ρv
   
xµl
Xtt2 = (9)
(1 − x)µv x ρl
 0.2  1.8  
µl 1−x ρv
Xtt2 = (10)
µv x ρl
Lockhart-Martinelli Multiplier

The L-M correlation is for the two-phase multipliers, φ2l and φ2v
(not φ2lo and φ2vo ).

The conversions are as follows:

φ2lo = φ2l (1 − x)2−n (11)

φ2vo = φ2v x 2−n (12)

... where n = 0.2 when the McAdams correlation is used.

Lockhart-Martinelli Correlations
If frictional pressure gradient is known, φ2l and φ2v can be
calculated from the data and then correlated.

Lockhart and Martinelli proposed (with X as the positive square

root of X 2 ):

C 1
φ2l = 1 + + 2 (13)
X X
φ2v = 1 + CX + X 2 (14)

... with C as a constant based on whether the fluid is laminar or

turbulent.
Assuming the latter:
20 1
φ2l = 1 + + 2 (15)
Xtt Xtt
φ2v = 1 + 20Xtt + Xtt2 (16)
Coupling to Void Fraction

After some tedious algebra:

φ2l = (1 − α)−2 (17)

This estimate of α are then used in gravitation and acceleration

parts. Note that the estimate of α requires φl , even if dp/dz takes
φv .
Which Multiplier? (Not in Text)

The two multipliers are not consistent for the same flow. This
stems from the empirical correlations for φ2l and φ2v .

The transition is based on the liquid Reynolds number:

Gm (1 − x)De ρl {jl }De

Rel = = = (18)
µl µl

When this is larger than 4000, φ2l is to be used. Otherwise, φ2v .

At typical BWR conditions (ρl = 740 kg m−3 , µl = 9.5 × 10−5 kg
m−1 s−1 , De ≈ 0.01 m), this requires {jl } > 0.05 m s−1 (or
Gl >37 kg m−2 s−1 ).

So, for reactor applications, φ2l is almost always the appropriate

choice. Low pressure, two-component annular flow data can
require both.
Adjustments to Lockhart-Martinelli (Not in Text)

Rather than developing a completely new correlation, some

researchers have preferred to adjust L-M to their data.

Adjustments have included:

I Using φ2l or φ2v exclusively, or adjusting the switch-over
criterion
I Selecting a different single-phase friction factor
I Fitting the parameter(s) C
Comments on Lockhart-Martinelli

This is likely the most often cited two-phase pressure drop

correlation. (To many chemical engineers, it is the only
correlation). For comparing correlations, Lockhart-Martinelli is the
“Mendoza Line” of models – any new proposal that cannot
perform better is rapidly discarded.

While the correlation started with assumptions regarding physics –

mechanical equilibrium and the applicability of single-phase
pressure fields – it ends up being a curve fit by virtue of φ2 (X 2 ).

Integrating the L-M correlation (total pressure loss in channel

during boiling) can be a challenge as the function is non linear in x
and branches about Rel . Typically, it is handled numerically (finite
volume approach).
The dα/dz Term in L-M
As a type of separated flow model, the L-M correlation must be
able to produce estimates of dx/dz (presumably through an energy
balance) and dα/dz (below):

dα dα dx dα dXtt dx
= = (19)
dz dx dz dXtt dx dz
dα/dXtt from Equation 11-95c:
p
dα (CXtt + 2) Xtt2 + CXtt + 1
=− 4 (20)
dXtt 2Xtt + 4CXtt3 + (2C 2 + 4) Xtt2 + 4CXtt + 2

dXtt /dx n = 0.2 for McAdams:

dXtt (n − 2) (1 − x)n/2 x 3
= n/2 (21)
dx x (2x 5 − 4x 4 + 2x 3 )
The dα/dz Term in L-M

dα dα dXtt dx
= (22)
dz dXtt dx dz
p !
(CXtt + 2) Xtt2 + CXtt + 1
=− × (23)
2Xtt4 + 4CXtt3 + (2C 2 + 4) Xtt2 + 4CXtt + 2
!
(n − 2) (1 − x)n/2 x 3 dx
n/2 5 4 3
(24)
x (2x − 4x + 2x ) dz
Conclusion: not usually worth the pain for pure fluids with phase
change.
Müller-Steinhagen and Heck – Motivation
Consider, at a constant Gm , the function dP/dzfric (x):

There are two boundary conditions that must be satisfied:

single-phase expressions at x = 0 and x = 1. The function has
been observed to be continuous and reasonably smooth.

There is a single peak in the function, at a quality of x = 0.9 to

x = 0.95, depending on fluid properties, Gm , and geometry.
(Enrichment: this is clearly an annular flow. Indeed, this peak
occurs at roughly the same flow quality as the critical film flow
rate.)

Two-phase multplier methods (i.e., SFM methods) will either have

a discontinuity or violate a boundary condition. Müller-Steinhagen
and Heck is a purely empirical method to estimate frictional
pressure gradient only – acceleration and gravity terms must come
from somewhere else.
Müller-Steinhagen and Heck Correlation

dP −0.25 Gm2
= 0.316Relo (25)
dz fric,lo 2Dh ρl
Gm Dh
Relo = (26)
µl
dP −0.25 Gm2
= 0.316Rego (27)
dz fric,go 2Dh ρg
Gm Dh
Rego = (28)
µg
dP dP
= GMSH (1 − x)1/3 + x3 (29)
dz fric,MH dz fric,go
 
dP dP dP
GMSH = + 2x − (30)
dz fric,lo dz fric,go dz fric,lo

Note: GMSH is not a mass a flux, but a pressure gradient (Pa/m).

Müller-Steinhagen and Heck Comments

For a wide range of fluids, this is observed to provide a good

estimate when it is integrated from x = 0 to x = 1 and a fair
estimate at any given x. It is a strong performer in two-component
annular flow.

No estimate of α is evident. Recommendation: use (1) drift flux

model for bubbly/slug/churn, (2) M-N void fraction (Figure 11-17)
for any steam-water regime, or (3) some purely empirical
correlation you look up from a journal. If you need it, estimate
dα/dz with finite difference
Review of HEM

HEM:
Gm 2
dp fTP D1h 2ρ 2 dx
+ + Gm dz volfg + ρm g cos (θ)
m
− = ∂vol
(31)
dz 1 + Gm2 x ∂p g

General SFM:
x 2 ∂volg 1 Gm2
 
dp
− 1 + Gm2 = flo φ2lo + ρm g cos (θ)
dz {α} ∂p Dh 2ρl
 
2 2xvolg 2 (1 − x) volf dx
+Gm −
{α} {1 − α} dz
!
2
x 2 volg (1 − x) volf d{α}
+Gm2 − + (32)
{α}2 {1 − α}2 dz

Assume dx/dz = dα/dz = 0, incompressible gas, upflow:

Review of HEM
HEM:
dp 1 Gm2
− = fTP + ρm g (33)
dz Dh 2ρm
General SFM:
dp 1 Gm2
− = flo φ2lo + ρm g (34)
dz Dh 2ρl
Phrase the HEM with φlo (as an SFM model):

dp 1 Gm2
− = flo φ2lo,HEM + ρm g (35)
dz Dh 2ρl
ρl fTP
φ2lo,HEM = (36)
ρm flo
ρl µTP n
 
φ2lo,HEM = (37)
ρm µf

In the event that dx/dz 6= 0, or compressible gas, or non-upflow:

the friction term still holds.
Martinelli-Nelson Model

The Martinelli-Nelson model is designed to apply directly to

steam-water systems.

Assumptions:
I φ2lo is a function of flow quality and fluid properties. Since
two-phase flow occurs along the saturation line, P and T are
coupled so that φ2lo = φ2lo (P, x) only.
I φ2vo need not be considered.
Computation of φ2lo in M-N
Most often φ2lo is looked up from a figure. The figure is often
generated from the results of the Lockhart-Martinelli correlation
(except with n = 0.25 instead of n = 0.2 – listed first) or the
analytical expression of Jones (listed second):
 
20 1
2
φlo = 1+ + 2 (1 − x)1.75 (38)
Xtt Xtt
 
2 ρf
φlo = 1.2 − 1 x 0.824 + 1 (39)
ρg
Although these look much different than one another, they
produce similar results.

For constant heating, an average multiplier can be computed (such

as that from the L-M correlation):
1 x
Z  
20 1
2
φlo = 1+ + 2 (1 − x)1.75 dx (40)
x 0 Xtt Xtt
φ2lo in M-N
Figure 11-15 in T&K
gyVY/  a ! ‚ *CVy‚  ~ Q  MAa‚ *

#  ΖΗ
€‚ƒ„ƒ…†‡ˆ‰Š
ѣǴǻǵ ȐȑǶ ˞ YȓРӔώͰѤӠ
Ȓ ˜Ʋ˜ǷϬȂȃː ‹ŒŽ‘’“U•
>òˏȜʬȝ ӒǯǭȹǮ͢ӠȺ‫੿੾ ׻׎‬Į࠶࠷
‫ڜ‬ĮଡɌம
ʇʈ—ưȀȁǰǼDZȢ—ǿƱӓDzdzŏЍϪ ʪĠӠʸӑʅʆȞȟȠӠ
̂̃w
̄ ŝǢ
wǽǣɝɞǫ
ɟ Ǥ‫ ׏‬ǬȦȧӛč‫׻‬

ԏԐ߶ம
Ɏɏɐʩ

Ԍம ԋம ਟਠਡம
´ǐ ³ǐ
ϛ‫׻‬

FG“”
ѮѯѰம°ɬҒӠò
ȑǥ

ńӠ
µ ò =ò ɥӠ ҉Ҋҋ ŗŘř
ŀŁłŃ ųʋʌƩӠ Xǐ
ʵ˝ӐӠ
Ǧǧ ՔՕ‫׻‬
͎Ӡ
Ƶǐ
$• êëŜ • ˖‫׻‬
ʘʙ
˅‫׻‬
ò -ӏǬ
¤ŽťǐDŽâŹǐ
ƶǐ

Àăǐ ߵம Ʒǐêëò
˄‫׻‬

߳ம
Ϝ‫׻‬ ˘‫׻‬ ȏ ϨϩϪ ̶̷̸̹‫׻‬
˕‫׻‬ Ȑ ē‫׻‬

֛ԍ֜ம ѡம Β
µËǐ Ģǐ ¥¦͒ ìò
ଠம
„éòġǐǩƴǐଟம
‫׻׍‬ Ǩ

ŵʗ°¤¤ƫӠ
ߴம
Cò ͷଞம
࣊࣋ ଝ
࣌ ம
Ȏ

ϭϮ࣏࣍࣎ 'íò $I±ò

ŴʡʢƪӠ
֚ம
œŜ %• &• '• (• $•
• IY··Ó¦ÂY€ÁÓ ‫ ׻‬È ]ÌÓ³È

0PIkcCr   %r DƂŘ'
Ř|f
' Ȍ  Է "7B Է Է E''Է EԷ oq2Է 'Է ˆ
ˆ
Է
53/= 69*2$--+= 2!=
Kcj{pm‘ Bf Wj # J Ŏ
α in M-N
Figure 11-17 in T&K
gyV[. b$‚ )HVy‚  } Q O3 d‚ *

Q­Xyr«¶ÈÈZ¶È³ È

4 ް৊ࢤੂ઎োࢥம 4 4

§¨í
©ǐ ǐ
4 -4
˜ÔиӠ ůПёχÔƦӠ ӉӠକம߯ம
߫ம ª«ð
¬ǐ ưYǐ
Ҹ

ࣇம
D•~ò[•ͅӠ
ȍ

.4 %4 
! ɤ͋Ӡ͍̇Ӡ
ѽѾત
ѿம ம
1*+24
ϒ‫ ׻‬৔৕৖ৗ੧੨ ɢӠ@@

H•ĝǐ͌Ӡ {òōŜòg‚kò
"4 #4
ଗटठம
ƀīƈ‫ڌ‬ம 
ÃŜ ߺ
< < <

ѦѧѭѮӠ Ԇம

8• 9• "• • :I•Ĝǐ \•}:ò āǐ͉Ӡ 67ò

ҀҁȞ
҂ம ம
ϖ‫׻‬ ϗ‫׻‬ Ϙ‫׻‬

߹
࡯ம & '4

• ҊӠǃǐ F• 9ò͆Ӡ̆Ӡ€fò

߭ம ߮ம

4
‫׻׌‬

ɣӠ
ϔ‫׻‬ ϕ‫׻‬ –‫׻‬
4
4  4
o• •
Ӿ‫׻‬

Öò • |ò
• ͇Ӡ Ġǐ͈Ӡ ÌƯǐ þÁŜÿèŜ E•
ċ‫׻‬

ƀƈī
×ò   4
3
৳৴৵ம Ӱம

ĀÂŜĞǐ ýŜ
੡੢
4
ĺ‫׻‬

àŜ ;ò ěǐ ߰‫ݡ‬ம
E‫׻‬ •‫׻‬ •‫׻‬
4 
֔ம ֕ ɯ֖ம
4 ‫ݖݕ‬ம ӱம
ԅம ߬ம
Ë؆‫ڃ‬ம
݆ம
#E£&Bò
ज੣੤ فò<ò ğǐ થଖம
ѷѸѹம • C•
/4 4
ʦʩ

ɧӠ ଓம҃҄Ȟ
 !4  (& ͊Ӡ ҅ம ம
৘৙੥੦
ěŜp• ÀŜ
Ź‫׻‬

!4 4 4 ľϯ ѺѻѼம

džம
$),
ϓ‫׻‬
 ǃӊӠZq• 
ʚʛʜ‫׻‬
ਦம
Ȍ
ଔம҆҇҈ѱࣆ
Ѳѳம ம
džம
4 04 4
IX¦¦ÈŒ­Xyr«¶È ‫׻‬

0PMcCr'r ĉġ
ġԶf
 Է ġԷ 0ġ ʀԷ qxŎ {


5Ŏ Ŏ0
Ŏ Bf WĘÖaŎ
Integral Approach
M-N is most useful when using an integral approach (computing
∆P rather than dP/dz). When gas compressibility is ignored
(reasonable for many industrial steam-water applications, where
∆P << Pabs and constant heating is assumed – don’t use in core),
the SFM pressure difference becomes:
Z xout
flo Gm2 L
∆P = × × φ2lo dx (41)
De 2ρl xout 0
" #
Gm2 (1 − xout )2 2 ρ
xout l
+ + −1
ρl 1 − αout αout ρv
Lρl g cos(θ) xout
Z    
ρv
+ 1− 1− α dx
xout 0 ρl

This is sometimes written as:

flo Gm2 L G2
∆P = (r3 ) + m (r2 ) + Lρl g cos(θ)(r4 ) (42)
2De ρl ρl
Integral Approach (2)

The first part of the acceleration term appears to produce garbage

(0/0) when xout = 1, but it actually goes to 0. We’ll skip the
analytical x(α) and related calculus and provide the result that, in
this limit:
Z 1
flo Gm2
∆P = × ×L φ2lo dx (43)
De 2ρl 0
Z 1
Gm2 ρl
    
ρv
+ − 1 + Lρl g cos(θ) 1− 1− α dx
ρl ρv 0 ρl

r2 , r3 , and r4 tables still work in the limit xout = 1.

Graphical Correlation of r2 (acceleration)
Figure 11-18 in T&K, listed as for the Thom correlation (same
value) – can calculate from equation; don’t really need a chart
* QwH`‚ b}bkOb‚ >‚

रʚ˗ʤ৒৓ϐͱ݅‫ޡͲޠ‬଒࠴ͳਢ࠳࠱࠲࠵əɚ¸¸ѫѬ¸
ѭ ӹӺʹ࠮ம

‫ٲ‬ம

źଧନ੒த஥ம

‫؝‬Ňம

Õம

‫ۃ‬ছம

֐ம
ƌம
Ƈம
‫ٱ‬ம
Ըம
źம

̣‫׻‬

Õம
‫׋‬΍‫׻‬

 ĊӠ
NJம
ɗம
ʎ‫׻ˉ׻‬

åம ‫נ‬ம
v

Ǐம
J‫׻‬

Ƒம
̈́‫׻‬

֑̖ம
Թƌம
ԺƇம
ɮ‫ٳ‬ம
̗٘ம
૕‫ع‬ம
૖‫؞‬ம

૗؄ம

ʣ૘ťம

Ň૔֎Իம ΦΧϜϝϞϤӵӶ Ͱ΁ϥϦϧӮӯ‫΃΂ݸ‬ ࠭ଐ଑Ӧӧ

΄ ӫӬ
Ө ӭ૊ம
‫ס‬Կம Õம ‫غ؟‬ம ‫ٴ‬ம ֏ԼԽԾம 0PIiaCr ggºgŽம @ɐȎ!Է 

ɘò˥Է
ťம ؅ՀՁம

!!
Է Է ġ?
Է 6  = 540=
M‹b‘X«r †dȋ‘b¨¨­bÈ Ȋம ‹¨sÈXÈ )37= ēwWk # J Ŏ


ԅ 
ԅԅ±
ԅ±

ԅԅ )GǨ @666– eTƛԅ  n ԅɩ

Fԅ èóFóԅ ¸ԅ ±
ԅ 
ԅ ԅ ʈÚԅ
ǽʩ

 ԅ
ԅԅԅF&
óԅ.F¸ԅ
F

ԅԅ Đԅ 
ԅ¸ԅ 
ԅԅԅ
ԅFE
ԅ!F

ǎԅ
Graphical Correlation of r3 (friction)
Figure 11-16 in T&K
* QwG$`‚ b}bg$Ob‚ 4‚

֗‫ؼ‬ம ‫צ‬ம ‫ـ‬ம ‡Ոம ǐ ‹))ம ‡Ջம ½¾ ǐ 0ºǐȋੁöம

¿Àǐ ǐ Żம ֻம )ம ‫ف‬ம ǐ ǐ ۙö্ம

ӊ‫׻‬ Ӌ‫׻‬ —‫׻‬ Ӊ‫׻‬ F‫׻‬ ӈ‫׻‬ F‫׻‬ F‫׻‬ —ӌ‫׻‬

Ýò
ŎŜr•
s•t•ÞòÚò ‫ݟݞݝ‬ ±ÉQǐ ˭҇ϋѡӠЩѸͯϩόѢҋӠ
ŏŜƲǐx•åòæçèò
֙))ம
ğɤʹʺʻʼʽ‫׻‬
ҜҝҞҟம
ԉ‫)ڄ‬ம
áǐ ̒Ӡ ɿӠ ϊӠ

ĚÛǐ
˒‫׻‬

ӇӈӉӊӋӌம ࠙ࠚம Ϣ ੕੖੗ம ԇம

ϥϦ‫׻‬ ˓‫׻‬
ʡʢʣʤ‫׻‬ ʥʦʧʨʩ‫׻‬ Ĵ Đ˔‫׻‬

ӛӜӝӞӟӠӡӢம ɰ‫ݛݚ‬ம ‫݌‬ம ࣀࣁࣂࣃࣄம

Ĕ‫׻‬ Ϛ‫׻‬

৶৷৸ம ‫݋‬ம Ӟӟӌ Ԋٙ)ம

ϙ‫׻‬

ɎɏɐɑɒɓɔɕӠ Ӡ Ӡ
੷੸ம Ѩѩ
ʯʰʱʲʳ‫׻‬
ijäò
ò߃
ò ò ન‹)ம
੹੺‫ݎ‬ம ×ம
Ƴǐ ”•yz• àò
•
ӋӠ ‫߲ݜ‬ம
‫ݐ‬ 0ǐ
{•v•w•ŐŜőŒŜ Ðǐ
ҠҡҢңம ߱ம
ଘம
u•Ʊǐ ଜ‫ݏ‬ம
ÜòÛòŤǐYãò~•G ²Êǐ
‡Ճம ΀ம
ѴѵѶம
ԓԔ‫׻‬

Żம

Ġ ɕ
Č‫׻‬

֤ம ۤ‫ۥ‬ம Ԉம
݇Ƀધம ̚ம ‫֘ݵ‬ம
ϣ‫׻‬ ԑԒ ֋‫׻‬

ӍӎӏӐӑӒӓம ‫ݔݓ‬ம
ҽҾҿӀӁம ࢾம ¿ӍӠ
৚৛ ଙம ਝਞம
опѫɋɌɍӠ
туфхӠ h«¬­ áâò
ʴʵʶʷʸ‫׻‬

ɂॖ ‫ݢ‬ம
¨©ª |}•
մ

ଚ‫ݍ‬ம
દம
ਗ਼

‫ע‬ம ‹ம ř)ம ‫ק‬ம

Ƭɤ żம
ѬѱѲӠ
ɐɤ;• ǐ ۚȒம
‡‫ؽ‬ம ‫ר‬ம żம ř))ம ‫תש‬ம ‹Չம ‫ܔܓ‬ம ‫ף‬ՎՏம ଛம ȋਿङöம
ǜʩ ¢ʩ Ðʩ ȩʩ »ʩ Ȫʩ

޲ǘȔȔએৎǘம

3RIkeCr ưư΀ưϕԷ ĉӖ '
UZf
'Է 
(
Է ͽӎКӠ ѱĥԷ Ƨ
Է o4 `Է Է (½
'Է
u Է o4 `Է WϿԷ D‘ ā͋Է ̡ІӗӃҲԷ
{Z5
5ŎŎ0
Ŏ BfWkÕJŎ
Graphical Correlation of r4 (gravity)
Figure 11-20 in T&K, listed as for the Thom correlation (same
value)
* QuK !  ^ ‚ aah!Ma‚ 7‚

֌૒1ம ņம
1 ‫ͮڋ‬
Է‫ڂ‬ம
1‫ٯ‬ம ͭ ‫ם‬ம
1ٗம ͯ

1Ȩ‫ط‬ம

Զ‫؛‬ம

£Ʈǐ
Åʤʩ

1‫؁‬ம
ljம
Ȩૄம

v
_v
1̔‫מ‬ம
v

Ǐம
J‫׻‬

Ƒம
‫׻׊‬

ଏம
ࢣ‫ޟ‬ம
ɷம̕
଎ம
Ҩ‫׻‬
ӽŲ

1૓֍1ம
ֈĬ‫׻‬
Ŷ˩‫׻‬ī

M‹b‘X«s…dÈ ‹b¦¦­b È ‹¦sÈXÈ

$?;OF8[  
r yɐ̖!Է (ˆ7;Ɯ Է ˆ
!!6ˆ
Է ˆԷ ]6;;
ˆԷ oï˃Ŏ pŎ  ~Ŏ BwWk # J Ŏ
Comments on Martinelli-Nelson

Based on real data, φ2lo is not independent of Gm geometry.

M-N assumed a separated flow in their model (which in vertical

flow implies annular flow). Since dispersed flows (e.g., bubbly)
occur and regime transitions are functions of Gm and De (in
general), the implicit regime identification is incorrect.

The M-N model works best at moderate Gm (500-1000 kg m−2

s−1 ). This is somewhat below typical reactor Gm values, for which
HEM is typically better
Armand-Treschev Correlation

Correlation for α (old news):

α = β [0.833 + 0.05 ln(10p)] (44)

p in MPa
This relation for α is enough to compute ρm and the gravitational
part. The accelerational part comes from the dx/dz term (given or
energy balance) and the dα/dz term.

It is fairly strong for in-core BWR calculations.

Two-Phase Multiplier for A-T
For β < 0.9 and α < 0.5:

(1 − x)1.75
φ2lo = (45)
(1 − α)1.2

For β < 0.9 and α > 0.5:

0.48 (1 − x))1.75
φ2lo = (46)
(1 − α)n
n = 1.9 + 0.0148p (47)

p in MPa
For β > 0.9:
0.0025p + 0.055
φ2lo = (1 − x)1.75 (48)
(1 − β)1.75

p in MPa