Hinting forces. This i.s evident from Fig.

2, where variation of
Fx with f3m is plotted at various y. The locus of (FK)m-.,x or
(/Sin)opt satisfies the equation (26). It is also evident that the
condition expressed by equation (26) cannot be satisfied for
y < 70 deg, indicating that the fluctuating lift cannot be eliminated for high staggered low flow coefficient blades, a conclusion
already reached by Horlock on the basis of Sears (reference [3])
analysis.

Perhaps the authors might wish to comment on this, and indicate how far they would really wish to encourage the designers to
use their approach in the practical design of turbomachinery,
bearing in mind the many simplifying assumptions that were
involved.

Authors' Closure
Several of the comments made by Mr. B. Lakshminarayana are
considered by the authors to be pertinent and helpful in clarifying
the subject of this paper. We agree that the application of
conclusions based on an isolated airfoil analysis to a cascade of
airfoils becomes more questionable as the solidity of the cascade
is increased. It is also true that the quasi-steady criterion
presented by the authors and the criterion for maximum steady
state forces are one and the same. The quasi-steady fluctuating
lift is eliminated by choosing those points on the blade lift versus
flow coefficient curves which are either a maximum or a minimum.
It follows that equation (26) can be derived by the analysis of the
maximum lift produced by an isolated airfoil, i.e., operation at its
optimum value of 0 m , In reference [3], this same condition was
derived from an unsteady analysis of airfoil lift with the airfoil
operating at a reduced frequency equal to zero. This is, of
course, the quasi-steady condition. It is important to note,
however, that while the condition expressed by equation (26)
eliminates the fluctuating lift at zero reduced frequency, it also
very nearly minimizes the fluctuating lift over a large range of
reduced frequencies which are not zero, reference [3], It is
purely on the basis of this fact that the authors have presented the
quasi-steady criterion and consider it to be of value in reducing
fluctuating liftIn reply to the comment regarding the practical design of
turbomachinery, the authors feel that the turbomachinery designer who is concerned with fluctuating lift has two design approaches available to him. They are:
1 To use an unsteady analysis such as presented in reference
[3] and thereby minimize the fluctuating lift at a particular
reduced frequency or
2 To use the quasi-steady criterion which minimizes the
fluctuating lift, over a range of reduced frequency. The former
choice is complicated by the fact that the designer must consider
both the real and imaginary (i.e., the in and out of phase) components of lift. This added restriction may not allow enough
flexibility in the design to allow the other requirements of the
design to be fulfilled. The quasi-steady criterion, on the other
hand, eliminates the need to be concerned with the out of phase
components and thus simplifies the total design. Thus, we feel
that until the unsteady analysis is better understood and more
easily applied, the quasi-steady criterion is of importance to the
turbomachinery designer.
As pointed out in the paper, the authors feel the greatest
limitation in the application of the quasi-steady criterion is the
restriction imposed by large radial variations in the flow which
result. We have conducted several designs using this criterion
and find that in every case that it is possible to satisfy the criterion
at some point along the blade span. Consequently, a designer
can make improvements in existing turbomachinery relative to
the fluctuating lift only if he concentrates on a certain region of
the span, say the tip region, or employs blades with a high hubto-tip ratio.

Journal of Engineering for Power

L i q u i d / V a p o r Action in a Vessel During

Blowdown1
N . P. W I L B U R N . 2
The author has in this paper attacked a problem which is very important in the study of the loss-of-coolant
from a nuclear reactor. When his original document [6] on this
problem became available I was extremely interested in it. in that
I was about to undertake a similar study. 3 In the developments
that followed several points were noted about the author's
derivations which should lie mentioned at this time. These are
summarized below:

1 Assumption [5] is vague in that, as is seen in the later

derivation, what is truly meant is that the bubble rise velocity (u)
is constant as in a liquid in which no other bubbles are present
(i.e., a i- 0). Alternatively it could be said, u is constant with
respect to the superficial liquid velocity. In either case the assumption does not appear realistic, since the terminal velocity of
a bubble is determined by a balance of the buoyancy forces and
the drag forces. The latter is generally assumed proportional to
the relative local slip velocity. Therefore, it seems that the
relation:
V iif = it (uf = liquid velocity-ft/sec)
would be preferable. This major change affects equation (a)
and all subsequent dependent equations. Equation (5) becomes :
Tr, /

(1 -

a(y,

t))Av(y)

2 Equation (3) exemplifies the quandry that exists in the

definition of quality. In reference [5] and many others, quality
is defined based on the flow rates of gas and liquid. It seems
timely to rename this latter quantity based on flows "floquality"
or something equally distinctive to differentiate it from the "grab
sample" quality, which can be expressed directly in terms of the
local void fraction.
3 Equation (10) has in it the implicit assumption that no
evaporation or condensation takes place from the liquid immediately at the foam-vapor interface.3 This is probably not
valid in the case where the foam level is rising.
4 Equations (11) and (12) are not wholly true. Reference to
the original work [6] shows that the inequalities here result from
F(2/ + , t)MvB, 0 = 0- However, a detailed analysis [1] of the
first order hyperbolic partial differential equations which describe
the void fraction as a function of time show that: (a) XE(yE+, t)
is determined by conditions above yE as long as V(yE+, I)
a(yE+, t)u < 0. The latter quantity is the slope of the characteristic at yE+ for t, (6) XE(yE+, I) = XE(yE~, I) at least until
the characteristic which leaves y = 0 at t = 0 reaches yB~. (c)
Under the conditions of equation ( I f ) or those derived from (4a)
above, it is not obvious that A',.-+ necessarily equals XE~ and I
do not think it can be proved. The assumption does seem
reasonable though when both phases are moving upward at yB~.
5 In the discussion leading up to equation (18) the vapor
formation rate is taken equal to n i / ( f ) W / a ( l ) / M f ( t ) . Although
this seems reasonable, other mechanisms are possible such as a
gas phase limiting mechanisms in which the rate would then be
m0(S)WJM0{t).

B y F . J. M o o d y ,

J O U R N A L O F E N G I N E E R I N G FOR P O W E R , T R A N S .

A S M E , Series A, N o . 1, Vol. 91, Jan. 1969, pp. 53-61.

2 Research Associate, Reactor Safeguards Experiments Section,
Battelle Northwest, Richland, Wash.
3 Wilburn, N . P., " V o i d Fraction Profile in a Vessel During Coolant
B l o w d o w n , " B N W L - S A - 1 9 4 9 , July 1968, Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 11, No. 2, N o v . 196S, p. 684.

Copyright 1969 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/12/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

APRIL

1 9 6 9

/ 1 3 3

0 The statement after equation (22) is only true if I!"/(/),

A";.-(/) and Wfg{t) are known.
7 The liquid-vapor flow rate G(t) in equation (54) is a function of XE and P according to reference [5]. As a result, an
iterative loop is required in which G is assumed from which XE
is ultimately determined and thus G.
8 The results presented in Fig. 8 do not agree very well with
similar theoretical results obtained recently3 nor do they agree
well with data obtained by the Containment Systems Experiment.4 This leads one to believe that there is still much to be
done in this area.

plane, respectively, the following relationship is obtained:

'V\~

_ JFe
,1

If bubbles at y+ move upward, - p < ( J

both A"~ and XE.
- )
v

(62)

and A

depends on

Equations (7), (Gl), and (62) provide

(A" + A'~)

(A-

XE)

(63)

(i

only

The arbitrary mass extraction rate II",.; affects

Author's Closure
Dr. Wilburn has performed recent studies oil the subject of
liquid and vapor action, and his discussion is greatly appreciated.
Closure remarks below refer to his eight specific comments.
1 The assumption of constant bubble rise velocity relative to
liquid admittedly is vague. The model considers numerous
horizontal planes of very small bubbles with some vertical distance A f between them. Bubble velocity relative to liquid between the planes is u. However, relative velocity past a bubble
plane is m(1 a), where a is the vapor area fraction of the plane.
Since the instantaneous vapor volume fraction and area fraction
are identical only if vapor exists as continuous vertical columns in
the liquid, present use of relative bubble velocity u and void fraction a is not clear. This difficulty is resolved if (lie vapor volume
fraction is defined as a mean vapor area fraction either during a
short time at fixed elevation, or over a short vertical distance at
fixed time.
An examination of bubble rise data indicates that equation (5)
is appropriate when vapor occurs as discreet bubbles. Zuber
and Hench5 bubbled air through water columns. Their results
indicate a constant bubble rise velocity of nearly 1.0 fps relative
to liquid in the bubbly regime for void fractions as high as 0.50.
Thereafter, the flow regime changed, and much higher vapor
penetration velocities were noted. Wilson et al., reference [9] of
the paper, presented data which apparently does not include the
bubbly regime, but shows increasing vapor penetration velocities
with increasing void fraction. The alteration of equation fo)
suggested by Wilburn is not consistent, with this observation.
However, it seems clear that when a bubbly regime does not
exist, the relative bubble rise velocity in equation (5) and elsewhere should be considered u(a). Calculations in the present
study give approximate results when u is considered an appropriate mean value in the system being analyzed.
2 Certainly different symbols would be preferred for vapor
mass and mass flow fractions.
3 If vapor formation rate is distributed homogeneously
throughout the liquid, vaporization at the interface indeed would
be negligible.
4 The following proof is offered for the validity of equations
(11) and (12). Consider an imaginary, horizontal control volume
at fixed elevation y where mass extraction occurs. The control
volume is so thin that no internal mass storage occurs. This
concept requires mass extraction at a point, and is a reasonable
idealization in most cases. Conservation equations for total
mass and for vapor mass are written as follows:
WT+

+ WE -

I F / + XEWE

WT~ = 0
- W~

= 0

(60)

(61)

If equation (60) is combined with equation (9) where superscripts

+ and refer to positions just above and below the extraction

through a net vessel pressure response. Therefore, it can be argued that equation (63) is satisfied when A"+ = A ~ = X E .
However, if bubbles at y
equation (62), and X+
follows.

134

A P R I L

from

move downward,

is independent of A ' - ,

Equation (12)

11 fa
M,(i)
equations (IS) and (19) applies only to those mechanisms which
tend to produce uniform vapor formation in the liquid, such as
vessel depressurization. The other vapor formation terms should
be considered local effects.
6, 7 The terms noted definitely are dependent on blowdown.
A forward difference calculation would be preferred for the general case.
8 Further work is needed to fully resolve the mechanisms by
which vapor penetrates liquid. This understanding should lead
to more accurate modeling of liquid-vapor action.
5

This is an important point.

The

term

Convective Heat Transfer in a Gas-Fired

Pulsating Qombustor 1
D . T. H A R R J E . 2
I am very pleased to comment on Dr. Ilanby's
paper since the paper deals with topics which have been under
active study by our group at Princeton for more than 15 years.
Specifically, we have been concerned with combustion instability
in liquid propellant rocket engines and the related topic of heat
transfer with oscillating flow.
Looking at the agreement between Dr. Hanby's work and our
own research, certainly we couldn't agree more on the central
point that the unsteady velocity amplitude is a controlling
parameter. We also have employed the quasi-steady model as
a basis for comparison, but because our frequencies ranged from
several hundred Hz in a steam-heated flow study, to several
thousand Hz in the rocket motors, we required a second
parameter which is a function of the Strouhal number and
Reynolds number. This f factor is a measure of the agreement
with the quasi-steady model. The f factor takes into account
the location of the highest unsteady shears with respect to the
characteristic depth of the turbulent boundary layer and compares the imposed frequency to the characteristic frequencies of
the turbulence [l]. 3 Using the parameter values in Dr. Hanby's
paper we would have predicted somewhat- less than complete
attainment of the quasi-steady heal transfer. However, factors
are present in Dr. Hanby's combustion experiments which contrast with our relatively cold flow study. First, for such com-

' " N u c l e a r Safety Programs Quarterly R e p o r t , August- through

October 1968," U S A E C Report BNAVL-926, D e c . 196S.
5 Zuber, N., and Hench, J., "Steady State and Transient Void
Fraction of Bubbling Systems and Tlieir Operating Limits, Part 1:
Steady State Operation," Report No. 62GL100, July 1, 1962.

By V. I. Hanby, published ill the Jan. 1969 issue of JOURNAL OF

ENGINEERING

FOR

POWER,

TRANS.

ASME,

Series

A.

Vol.

91,

pp.

4S-52.
2 Senior Research Engineer and Lecturer, Princeton University,
Princeton, N . J.
3 Numbers in brackets designate Additional References at end of
Discussion.

1 9 6 9

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/12/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the A S M E