Drawbacks of phase change models in simulating flashing of steam with a subsaturation downstream boundary condition

Abstract

AbstractThe development of phase change models applicable to a wide range of temperatures, pressures, and mass flow rates is primarily limited by the metastable or partially stable behaviour of the fluid. Due to this, the fluid does not change phase even after crossing saturation conditions. Most liquid–vapour phase change models have been developed primarily for the cavitation process where the phase change is not sustained, occurs in a very narrow region of space, or occurs under equilibrium conditions. In this paper, the mechanism of phase change is discussed along with the review of three different computational fluid dynamics (CFD)‐based phase change methods available in OpenFOAM, which are used to simulate flashing of steam, in applications related to steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) systems. The first method is based on barotropic compressibility (BC) used with the realizable turbulence model, the second combination is of mass transfer model (MTM) with the realizable turbulence model, and the third one is based on two fluid (TF) method along with a family of turbulence models. These methods are tested on a converging–diverging nozzle with pressure driven phase change. It is demonstrated that these methods are not able to adjust their physics to different depressurization rates, do not account for liquid to be in superheated conditions, and have significant discrepancies with experimental results. In the end, better approaches to model this category of phase change are discussed.