, 44:56 | Cite as

Numerical investigation of single bubble dynamics in liquid sodium pool

  • ARJUN PRADEEPEmail author


The single gas bubble rise dynamics in liquid sodium/sodium-potassium alloy (NaK) pool due to entrainment of argon cover gas/non-condensable fission gas (xenon) have received considerable attention in the safe operation of Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR). Numerical simulation of single bubble dynamics in liquid sodium/NaK pool is an essential intermediate step for the evaluation of rise velocity and shape changes, which are of utmost importance in areas of reactor safety concerned with source term evaluation and cover gas purification. The interFoam solver of OpenFOAM package is used to evaluate inert gas bubble rise dynamics in stagnant liquid metal pool of sodium and NaK. The governing equations are discretized and solved using the Volume of Fluid (VOF) based solver available in OpenFOAM with appropriate initial and boundary conditions. The VOF module of the solver is validated against numerical benchmark data and experimental results available in literature. The bubble dynamics in liquid sodium/NaK pool are studied in terms of trajectory, shape and rise velocity for diameters ranging from 10 to 20 mm, domain aspect ratios and for different gas-liquid systems. The study shows that the bubble rise velocity increases with diameter for liquid sodium systems. The rise behavior of single inert gas bubble in liquid water and sodium pool are compared. The study supports the use of air-water system as a simulant for studying bubble dynamics in liquid sodium systems as suggested by other researchers. The study is very useful and forms an intermediate step towards the development of an OpenFOAM based computational framework to analyze heat and mass transfer from single bubble rising in liquid sodium pool for reactor safety studies.


Bubble rise velocity sodium OpenFOAM 


  1. 1.
    Henry R E, Grolmes M A and Fauske H K 1971 Pressure-pulse propagation in two-phase one- and two- component mixtures. ANL-7792. Argonne National Laboratory IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pradeep A, Sharma A K 2018 Semiempirical model for wet scrubbing of bubble rising in liquid pool of sodium-cooled fast reactor. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50: 849–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Puthiyavinayagam P 2015 Progress in Fast Reactor Programme of India: April 2014-March 2015. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of TWGFR, IAEA IPPE. Obninsk. RussiaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clift R, Grace J R and Weber M E 1978 Bubbles, drops and particles. New York: Academic Press, pp.183–216 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shevchenko N, Boden S, Eckert S, Borin D, Heinze M and Odenbach S 2013 Application of X-ray radioscopic methods for characterization of two-phase phenomena and solidification processes in metallic melts. The Euro. Phys. J. Special Topics 220: 63–77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Han Z and Holappa L 2003 Bubble bursting phenomenon in gas/metal/slag systems. Metallurgical and Materials Trans. B. 34B: 525–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guézennec A G et al 2004 Dust formation by bubble-burst phenomenon at the surface of a liquid steel bath. Iron and Steel Institute of Japan Int. 44(8): 1328–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang X 2015 Numerical simulation of two-dimensional bubble dynamics and evaporation. PhD Thesis. KU Leuven Arenberg doctoral school, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang Z and Tong A Y 2008 Deformation and oscillations of a single gas bubble rising in a narrow vertical tube. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 47: 221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raees F, Heul D R V D and Vuik C 2011 Evaluation of the interface-capturing algorithm of OpenFOAM for the simulation of incompressible immiscible two-phase flow. Report. Department of Applied Mathematical Analysis. Delft University of Technology, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klostermann J, Schaake K and Schwarze R 2013 Numerical simulation of a single rising bubble by VOF with surface compression. Int. J. Num. Methods in Fluids 71: 960–982MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xu Y, Ersson M and Jönsson P 2015 Numerical simulation of single argon bubble rising in molten metal under a laminar flow. Steel Research Int. 86(11): 1289–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pradeep A et al 2015 Numerical simulation of gas bubble rising in a liquid pool of SFR. Indo-UK workshop on Modelling and Simulation of Safety and Materials for Nuclear Applications MSMNA-2015. Anupuram. Tamilnadu, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pradeep A et al 2016 Numerical modelling of inert gas bubble rising in liquid metal pool. Proceedings of the 6th International and 43rd National Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Power MNNITA. Allahabad. IndiaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verma A, Babu R and Das M K 2017 Modelling of a single bubble rising in a liquid column. In: Proceedings of the 5th International and 41st National Conference on FMFP 2014. A K Saha, et al Editors, 2017, Springer India, New Delhi, pp. 1059–1068Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miyahara S and Sagawa N 1996 Iodine mass transfer from xenon-iodine mixed gas bubble to liquid sodium pool, (II) development of analytical model. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 33(3): 220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dickinson D R and Nunamaker F H 1975 LMFBR source term iodine attenuation test of bubble breakup/coalescence in LMFBR outlet plenum following large fission gas release. No. HEDL-TC-537. Hanford Engineering Development Lab. Richland. Wash. USAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quarterly Technical Progress Report, Nuclear Safety, Characterization of Sodium Fires and Fast Reactor Fission Products, January-March 1976 AI-ERDA-13172. Atomics InternationalGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Umbel M 2011 Containment Source Terms for Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Accidents. Master’s Thesis. The Ohio State University, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Damián S M 2012 Description and utilization of interFoam multiphase solver. Final Work. Computational Fluid Dynamics Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenshields C J 2016 OpenFOAM user guide Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hirt C W and Nichols B D 1981 Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. J. Comp. Phys. 39: 201–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brackbill J U, Kothe D B and Zemach C 1992 A continuum method for modeling surface tension. J. Comp. Phys. 100: 335–354MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Leer B 1979 Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunov’s method. J. Comp. Phys. 32: 101–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Herreras N and Izarra J 2013 Two-Phase Pipe Flow Simulations with OpenFOAM. Master’s thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rusten E S A 2013 Numerical study of the droplet-interface dynamic related to liquid-liquid separators. Master’s thesis. Department of Physics. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hysing S, Turek S, Kuzmin D, Parolini N, Burman E, Ganesan S and Tobiska L 2009 Quantitative benchmark computations of two‐dimensional bubble dynamics. Int. J. Num. Methods in Fluids 60: 1259–1288 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Krishna R and Baten J M V 1999 Rise characteristics of gas bubbles in a 2D rectangular column: VOF simulations vs experiments. Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transf. 26(7): 965–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Levich V G 1962 Physiochemical Hydrodynamics. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic ResearchHBNIKalpakkamIndia

Personalised recommendations