BARC

4th RCM on the IAEA CRP on Natural Circulation Phenomena, Modelling

and Reliability of Passive Safety Systems that Utilize Natural Circulation

Thermo-fluid dynamics and pressure drops

in various geometrical configurations
M.R. Gartia, P.K. Vijayan D.S. Pilkhwal and D. Saha
Reactor Engineering Division
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Mumbai, India

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

BARC

Introduction
A large number of single-phase and two-phase flow pressure drop
correlations can be found in literature. Important pressure drop
relationships can be found in the IAEA technical document for
Thermohydraulic relationships for advanced water cooled reactors
(IAEA-TECDOC-1203).
Most of the pressure drop correlations are developed from data
generated in forced circulation systems.
The mechanism of flow in natural circulation loop may be complex
due to buoyancy effect and formation of secondary flows.
Therefore, there is a need to give a closer look to pressure drop
phenomena under natural circulation, which is both complex and
important

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

BARC

Definition
Pressure drop is the difference in pressure between two points of
interest in a fluid system. In general, pressure drop can be caused by
resistance to flow, changes in elevation, density, flow area and flow
direction .
It is customary to express the total pressure drop in a flowing system
as the sum of its individual components such as distributed pressure
loss due to friction, local pressure losses due to sudden variations of
shape, flow area, direction, etc. and pressure losses due to
acceleration and elevation.
An important factor affecting the pressure loss is the geometry.
Other factors are concerned with the fluid status, the flow nature, the
flow pattern, the flow direction, flow type, flow paths and the operating
conditions
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

BARC

Definition
An important focus of this phenomenon is the geometric conditions
that hinder the establishment of fully developed flow especially when
the fluid in question is a mixture of steam, air and water. This complex
thermo-fluid dynamic phenomenon warrants special attention.
Though in many systems like the primary system of a nuclear power
plant, flow is mostly not fully developed, pressure drop relationships
used in these systems are invariably those obtained for developed
flow. This practice is also experimentally proved to be more than
adequate in most of the cases. However, in some specific cases like
containment internal geometry, it is necessary to consider thermo fluid
dynamics in the developing region.
Normally the pressure loss inside a device depends on the nature of
flow through the device and not on the nature of driving head causing
the flow. However, under some circumstances, because of local
effects, the pressure loss may get influenced by the nature of driving
force.
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

BARC

Scenario

In a flowing system there are two components of total pressure drop

1. Irreversible pressure drop
2. Reversible pressure drop
The irreversible pressure drop is called pressure loss. This is due to
irreversible conversion of mechanical energy (the work of resistance
force) into heat. This includes Friction loss and Local loss.
There are also reversible component of pressure drop such as
elevation pressure drop and acceleration pressure drop.

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

BARC

Scenario

Friction loss
Due to the viscosity (both molecular and turbulent) of real liquid and
gases in motion, and results from momentum transfer between the
molecules (in laminar flow) and between individual particles (in turbulent
flow) of adjacent fluid layers moving at different velocities.
For two-phase flow, an additional frictional pressure drop may be due to
the inter-phase friction between gas-liquid or steam-liquid phases.

Local losses
Caused by local disturbances of the flow; separation of flow from the
walls; and formation of vortices and strong turbulence agitation of the
flow
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

BARC

Scenario

Acceleration pressure drop

Due to the energy spent in accelerating the molecules of the fluid.
This reversible component of pressure drop is caused by a change
in flow area or density.

Elevation pressure drop

Because of the work needs to be done against the gravity to raise
the fluid molecules to a height. This reversible component of
pressure drop is caused by the difference in elevation.

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

BARC

Scenario

The pressure loss components are inseparable. However, for ease

of calculation they are subdivided into components like local losses,
frictional losses etc.
It is also assumed that the local losses are concentrated in one
sectioned although they can occur virtually over a considerable
length
Most of the pressure drop correlations reported in literature had
been developed from steady state experimental data and mostly
under adiabatic conditions.

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

BARC

Hardware: where it occurs?

Geometries of interest to Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) are only considered here.

Channel type

Vessel type

Distributed pressure drop

- Feeder and tail pipe

- Bare bundle

- Core and core bypasses

- Surge line
- Steam Generator (SG)
tubes

Local pressure drop

- Fuel bundle assembly

- Various header
connections
- Valves and rupture disc
locations

- Pump inlet, outlet and

inside
- Pressurizer and surge
line connections

Safety system pressure

drop

- Accumulator outlet line

-Accumulator connections
- ECCS header to water
- ECCS connections
tube connection
- Advanced fluidic
device
- Gravity Driven Water Pool
(GDWP) to ECCS header
connection

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

BARC

Single Phase Pressure Drop: flow

under transition regime

In many transients, the flow may change from laminar to turbulent,

or vice versa, necessitating a switch of correlations.

Numerical calculations, often encounter convergence problems

when such switching takes place due to the discontinuity in the
friction factor values predicted by the laminar flow and turbulent
flow equations.

Well established correlations for friction factor do not exist in

transition region.

Few ways:
1.Calculate both fTURBULENT and fLAMINAR. If fT > fL then f = fT. This procedure,
however, causes the switch over from laminar to turbulent flow
equation at Re1100.
2. f = (fT)4000 for 2000 Re 4000 where (fT)4000 is the friction factor
calculated by the turbulent flow equation at Re = 4000.
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

BARC

Single Phase Pressure Drop: flow

under diabatic condition

fNON-ISOTHERMAL = fISOTHERMAL with properties evaluated at film temperature

Tfilm = 0.4 (Twall - Tbulk) + Tbulk

fNON-ISOTHERMAL = fISOTHERMAL* F
1. F in terms of temperature correction:

F=1+ C Tf ;

Tf is the temperature drop in the laminar layer (q/h).

Constant C = 0.001-0.0025

2. F in terms of viscosity ratio:

F = ( bulk / wall )- 0.28

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

BARC

Two-phase
Two-phase pressure drop relationships- adiabatic

Empirical correlation based on the homogeneous model

Empirical correlation based on the two-phase friction
multiplier concept
Direct empirical models
Flow pattern specific models

Void fraction relationships

Slip ratio models

K- models
Correlations based on drift flux models

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

12

BARC

Two-phase
Models using interfacial friction
Another form of two-phase pressure drop correlations are that uses
interfacial friction models. The two-fluid model used in many of the
advanced system codes require correlations for interfacial friction in
addition to wall friction.
Flow under diabatic condition
The correlations discussed so far are applicable to adiabatic twophase flow. The effect of heat flux on two phase pressure drop has
been studied by Leung and Groeneveld (1991), Tarasova (1966) and
Koehler and Kastner (1988).

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

BARC

Two-phase
Assessment of two-phase pressure drop correlations
The table given below gives the assessment of pressure drop
correlations by various authors and their recommendation.
Authors

Categories

No. of
correlations
tested

No. of
data
points

Recommended correlation

Weisman-Choe
(1976)

Homogeneous
model

---

---

McAdams (1942) and Dukler et

al. (1964)

Idsinga et al.
(1977)

Homogeneous
model

18

3500

Owens (1961) and Cicchitti

(1960)

Beattie-Whalley
(1982)

Homogeneous
model

12

13500

Beattie and Whalley (1982)

Dukler et al. (1964)

Multiplier
concept

9000

Lockhart and Martinelli (1949)

Idsinga et al.
(1977)

Multiplier
concept

14

3500

Baroczy (1966) and Thom (1964)

Friedel (1980)

Multiplier
concept

14

12868

Chisholm (1973) and LombardiPedrocchi (1972)

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

BARC

Two-phase

Snoek-Leung
(1989)

----

1217

Friedel (1979)

Vijayan et al. (2000)

---

14

424

Lockhart and Martinelli (1949)

with Chexal et al. (1996) for
void fraction.

Weisman-Choe
(1976)

Flow pattern
specific

11

Separated flow: Agrawal et al. (1973)

Hoogendoorn (1959)

and

10

Homogeneous flow : McAdams (1942), Dukler et

al. (1964) and Chisholm (1968)

Intermittent flow: Dukler (1964), LockhartMartinelli (1949) and Hughmark (1965)

Annular flow: Dukler (1964) and LockhartMartinelli (1949)

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

BARC

Two-phase
Mandhane et al.
(1977)

Flow pattern
specific

14

10500

Bubbly: Chenoweth and Martin

(1956)
Stratified: Agrawal et al. (1973)

Stratified wavy: Dukler et al

(1964)
Slug: Mandhane et al. (1974)

Annular, annular mist:

Chenoweth and Martin
(1956)
Dispersed bubble : Mandhane et
al. (1974)

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

BARC

Natural and Forced Circulation Pressure Drop

For forced circulation loops, the driving force is the head developed
by the pump which is generally far greater than the buoyancy driving
head.
The buoyancy being the driving head, natural circulation flows are
characterized by low driving head and consequent low mass flux.
Due to buoyancy effect and presence of secondary flows, the velocity
profile in a heated pipe may get modified which also depends on the
orientation of the pipe (horizontal, vertical upward or downward).
The secondary flow may, in turn, affect the friction factor for the pipe,
as the friction factor is mainly dependent upon the velocity gradient.

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

17

BARC

Natural and Forced Circulation Pressure Drop

Forced Circulation

Natural Circulation

Driving head

Large

Small

Secondary flow

Negligible effect

Could be significant

Transition from laminar to

turbulent flow

Occurs at higher
Reynolds number (Re)

Occurs at lower Re due

to secondary flow

Pressure drop correlations at

low mass flux

Accuracy need not be

high

High accuracy required

Transient

Relatively fast

Sluggish

Flow

Relatively high

Low

Stratification

Not a concern

Commonly
encountered

Instabilities

Less potent

High potential

CHF

Relatively higher

Relatively lower

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

18

BARC

Pressure Drop under Low Mass Flux,

Low Pressure Conditions

For a natural circulation loop during start-up, the flow builds up

virtually from zero flow condition. Hence the friction factor and loss
coefficient correlations should be accurate at very low mass flux.

Natural circulation loops are particularly susceptible to instabilities at

low pressure conditions. These flow instabilities may be
characterized by repetitive flow reversals.

There is a need to assess the existing correlation in terms of its

applicability for natural circulation loop.

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

19

BARC

Pressure Drop at Low Mass Flux

0.12

Pressure drop - kg/cm

0.11
0.10

Presure = 21 bar
2
Mass flux = 558 kg/m -s
Pipe ID = 26.64 mm

0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04

Calculated (Chisholm Model)

Measureed

0.03
0.02
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Quality

Comparison of measured and calculated pressure drop

in a vertical pipe with diabatic flow
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

20

BARC

Pressure Drop at Low Mass Flux

2.0
Presure = 21 - 72 bar
2
Mass flux = 40 - 2000 kg/m -s
2
heat flux = 55 - 65.2 W/m
Pipe ID = 26.64 mm

1.6

Pcal - bar

1.2

0.8

0.4
Experimental data

0.0
0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

Pmeas - bar

Comparison of measured and predicted pressure drop using CNEN

(1973) correlation for vertical upward diabatic flow in a tube
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

21

BARC

Single Phase Natural Circulation

The generalized flow correlation for single-phase loops (Vijayan, 1992) is
given by,
r

r
D

2
p

r 1 3b
and
Re ss C Grm

Leff

where p and b are given by the friction factor correlation of the form

f p Re b
Depending on the value of p and b, the flow correlation is given as
Re ss

Grm

0.1768
NG

Re ss

Grm

1.96
NG

0.5

Laminar flow (p=64, b=1)

Modified Grashoff number

Dr3 02 T gQh H
Grm
Ar 3 C p

0.364

Turbulent flow (p=0.316, b=0.25) with Blasius correlation

Geometrical parameter
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

L
NG t
Dr

i 1

l eff
d

1b

2 b

22

BARC

Generalized Correlation
5

10

6 mm loop
11 mm loop
23.2 mm loop
26.9 mm loop
VHHC orientation

f = 0.184 / Re

0.2

Ress

10

Blasius correlation
0.25
f = 0.316 / Re

f = 64 / Re
3

10

0.9501

f = 55.92 / Re
2

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

11

10

12

10

Grm / NG

Effect of friction factor on steady state flow rate in a single-phase

natural circulation loop as predicted by generalized flow correlation
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

23

BARC

Flow dependency on power

0.100

2 g T H Qh D A
Wss
rb N G Cp
p
2
0

b
r

1
3b

2b
r

Flow (kg/s)

0.075

0.050

0.025
Experimental data
-0.25
Blasius correlation (f = 0.316 Re )
-0.2
f = 0.184 Re
0.000
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Power (kW)

Effect of friction factor on steady state flow rate in a

single-phase natural circulation loop
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

24

BARC

Two Phase Natural Circulation

A generalized flow correlation of the same form as that of single-phase

has been developed (Gartia et al. (2006)) to estimate the steady state flow
rate in two-phase natural circulation loops which is given by,

Re ss C Grm N G

Where Ress= Steady State Reynolds Number ; Grm = Modified Grashof Number
NG = Geometric Parameter

Re ss

Grm

0.1768
NG

Grm

Re ss 1.96
NG

0.5

Laminar flow (p=64, b=1)

0.364

For density variation,

Turbulent flow (p=0.316, b=0.25) with Blasius correlation

1
tp
m

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

25

BARC

Generalized Correlation
+25%

10

-25%
Turbulent flow equation
( C=1.96, r=0.364)
4

Ress

10

10

10

Generalized correlation
r
Ress=C [Grm/NG]
Apsara loop (ID:1/2")
Apsara loop (ID:3/4")
Apsara loop (ID:1")

Laminar flow equation

( C=0.1768, r=0.5)
5

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

11

10

12

10

10

13

14

10

15

10

Grm/ NG

Effect of friction factor on steady state flow rate in two-phase

natural circulation loops
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

26

BARC

Variation of friction factor on two

phase flow prediction

6
Pressure=50 bar
o
Tfeed=250 C

M
a
s
s
F
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
(
k
g
/
s
)

5
4
3

2 g r tp H Q D A
rb N G
p

Wss
2

2 b
r

1
3 b

RELAP5/Mod 3.2 (Two-Fluid Model)

Experimental data (ITL)
Generalized correlation with Blassius model
Generalized correlation with Colebrook model

1
0

b
r

100

200

300

400

500

Power (kW)

Effect of friction factor on steady state flow rate in a two-phase natural

circulation loop as predicted by the generalized flow correlation
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

27

BARC

Effect of Friction Factor Multiplier

0.20

Colebrook Model for single-phase friction factor

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

Pressure = 20 bar
Tsub = 4K

0.16

0.12
Homogeneous
Lockhart-Martinelli
Martinelli-Nelson
Chisholm-Laird
Sekoguchi

0.08

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Power(kW)

Effect of two-phase friction factor multiplier on steady state flow rate

in a two-phase natural circulation loop using the generalized correlation
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

28

BARC

Effect of Pressure

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

2.4
2.0

Power = 30 kW
Tsub = 2 K

Single-phase friction factor used

0.30457
Experimental : f = 0.569 / Re
Theoretical : Colebrook Model

1.6
1.2
Homogenous model
Lockhart-Martinelli model
Martinelli-Nelson model
Chisholm-Laird model
Sekoguchi model
Experimental data (HPNCL)

0.8
0.4
0.0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pressure (bar)

Effect of pressure on steady state flow rate in a two-phase

natural circulation loop
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

29

BARC

10

35

10

28

10

21

10

14

Lt=7.23m, Lt/D=267.29, HHHC Orientation

Turbulent flow (p=0.184, b=0.2)

Turbulent flow (p=0.316, b=0.25)

Stable
Unstable

Grm

Effect of friction factor on stability

10

Stable
0

10

-7

10

10

Stm

Effect of friction factor on stability in a

single-phase natural circulation loop
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

30

BARC

Effect of friction factor on stability

120

Homogenous model
Lockhart-Martinelli model
Martinelli-Nelson model
Chisholm-Laird model
Sekoguchi model
Threshold of Instability
[Furutera (1986)]

100

Power (kW)

80
60
40

Unstable

20
0

Tsub= 4K

Stable
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Pressure (bar)

Effect of two-phase friction factor multiplier on the stability of a

two-phase natural circulation loop
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

31

BARC

Effect of large flow areas on pressure drops

Although large diameter pipes, large manifolds are used in natural

circulation system, still there is no valid correlation for such
geometry.
Simpson et al. (1977) compared six pressure drop correlations with
data from large diameter (127 and 216 mm) horizontal pipes.
None of the pressure gradient correlations studied predicted the
measure pressure drops adequately. In particular, measured
pressure gradients for stratified flow differed by an order of
magnitude from those predicted by the various correlations.
In view of this, the validity of the existing empirical correlations
needs to be checked. However, this is not unique to only natural
circulation system.
Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,
2007

32

BARC

Concluding Remarks

Within the range of parameter studied so far, relationships for

forced circulation as given in TECDOC-1203 were found to be
adequate for natural circulation and stability of natural circulation.

More accurate prediction capability is required at low mass flux and

for large area flow paths. However, this issue is not unique to only
natural circulation systems.

Applicability of existing correlations to natural circulation needs to

be assessed covering wider range of parameters.

Vienna, Austria, September 10-13,

2007

33