Artículo en donde se realiza simulaciones computacionales de flujos en tuberías

© All Rights Reserved

4 views

Artículo en donde se realiza simulaciones computacionales de flujos en tuberías

© All Rights Reserved

- 9780521457132_frontmatter
- Xfoil-CFD Performance Prediction
- A Review of Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Characteristics of Single and Two Phase Flow
- Turbulence
- EDEM+CFD+2Phase_Entrainment_Tutorial
- Bloodflow Solution
- 5 LP Dhole Review Article Aug 2011
- Book Fundamentals of Multi Phase Flow
- SummaryPhD Marin
- Lecture Note x
- 18
- FDS 5 Verification Guide
- cfx-sst
- Final Proposal HELIOS JIP
- ME525 SP2013 Lecture 26
- Ship Resistance
- pi3
- MKM99
- DeMaerschalck
- energies-03-00989

You are on page 1of 5

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene

Marco Pellegrini a, *, Hiroshi Endo b, Hisashi Ninokata a

a

b

Nuclear Engineering Department, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1-N1-5 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan

Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES), 3-17-1 Toronamon, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0001, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Received 29 October 2010

Received in revised form

8 February 2011

Accepted 16 February 2011

The correct evaluation of ows at transitional Reynolds number in nuclear reactors is gaining higher

importance in relation to the accident analysis for buoyancy-driven ows which dominate the heat decay

removal process. In the present paper a comparative study of different turbulence modeling and wall

treatment for the evaluation of a uid ow in transitional Reynolds number, is presented employing

computational uid dynamics (CFD). The relative performance of the models is assessed through

benchmarking of fully developed pipe ow at Reynolds number 4900 and of a 90 bend pipe at Reynolds

number 5000. Predictions of velocity proles at different locations are compared to both experimental

and accurate numerical simulations.

It has been found that the predictions between the models can vary considerably in particular in

relation to the different wall treatment employed on the wall. The results show the concerns about the

employment of the available turbulence models and wall treatments in low Reynolds number ow

regimes and explanation is provided in relation to their formulation.

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:

Transitional Reynolds number

Fully developed pipes

Bent pipes

CFD

1. Introduction

During protected accident in sodium fast reactors the establishment of coolant ow inside the plant, created either by natural

convection or by forced convection, is mandatory for the safety

removal of the decay heat released by the core. In such events,

sodium experiences low ow characteristics inside the piping

system which is likely to bring the system in condition of transition

turbulence. In CFD applications, the employment of Reynolds

Average Navier Stokes (RANS) equations with two equation

turbulence models, has always been considered a reliable tool and

widely employed for the solution of ow inside pipes. The

mentioned modelization neglects the effects of viscosity, so that it

cannot be applied in the vicinity of the wall and therefore, for wallbounded ows often empirical wall functions are employed to

bridge this gap, in order to avoid modeling the viscous effects.

However the universality of such functions breaks down for

complex ows and not fully turbulent ows, as shown by Eggels

et al. (1994) and den Toonder and Nieuwstadt (1997). In this

direction near-wall k-3 turbulence models (hereafter dened as low

Reynolds number models), which attempt to model the direct

inuence of viscosity, have been proposed (Jones and Launder,

1972). Those models are generally regarded as a more reliable

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: pellegrini.m.aa@m.titech.ac.jp (M. Pellegrini).

0149-1970/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2011.02.005

computational requirement. Conversely, as widely investigated by

Patel et al. (1984) and Hrenya et al. (1995) those models are

formulated for conditions of fully turbulent ows. The second

author shows indeed how the assessment of the velocity prole

and turbulence values for transitional ows brings to signicant

deviations from direct numerical simulation and experimental

results.

Moreover, even though fully developed turbulent pipe ows

represent a relatively simple ow yet one of utmost importance in

engineering community, nevertheless nuclear power plants piping

system often consist of numerous bends in order to accommodate

the thermal stresses arising during the plant operation. The nal

focus of the present study therefore will be the evaluation of ow

characteristics downstream of a bend pipe with strong curvature in

transitional ow regime, which will extend the considerations

established for the fully developed pipe.

The purpose of the present investigation is therefore twofold:

(1) To compare turbulence modeling and different wall treatments

in order to evaluate their behavior in transitional ows and to

point out the weaknesses the drive further and more accurate

modelizations;

(2) To evaluate the combination of models (turbulence and wall

treatment) which is more suitable to study protected transients

in a nuclear reactor piping system in order to extend the study

to buoyancy-driven non-isothermal ows in future analysis.

2. Numerical analysis

In the following study two different benchmarks are analyzed

through the commercial CFD code, Star-CCM 5.02.009. In the

present work the RANS equations,

vuj

0

vxj

Duj

vu

1 vP

v

n j ui uj

r vxj vxi vxi

Dt

(1)

closure. To perform the closure task two eddy viscosity models,

namely k-3 and k-u, and the Reynolds Stress Transport (RST) model

were employed for the comparative approach. For the k-3 model,

two different ways of solving the ow close to the wall were also

compared. The implemented version of the low Reynolds number

model (Lien et al., 1996), already introduced in chapter 1, which

adds damping functions in the 3 and eddy viscosity equations, was

compared with a two layer formulation based on the modeling

given by Wolfshtein (1968), in order to assess their behavior in

transitional Reynolds number ows. A common setting for the k-3

model used in this work is the employment of the non linear cubic

formulation of the eddy viscosity, which is demonstrated to

improve the predictions of ows with swirl and streamline curvature, as in the case of bent pipes, through a non linear combination

of mean strain rate tensor and mean vorticity tensor. The cubic

formulation, as developed in (Lien et al., 1996) is shown in Eq. (2):

ui uj

2

k

1

kdij nt Sij C1 nt Sik Skj dij Skl Skl

3

3

3

k

1

k

1

C2 nt Uik Skj dij Ujk Ski C3 nt Uik Ujk dij Ukl Ukl

3

3

3

3

i

k2 h

C4 nt 2 Ulj Ski Skl Uli Skj Skl

3

k2

2

C5 nt 2 Uil Ulm Smj Umj Ulm Sil Slm Umm Unl dij

3

3

k2

k2

C6 nt 2 Skl Skl Sij C7 nt 2 Ukl Ukl Sij

(2)

and is employed in this analysis, where Sij and Uij are the mean

strain rate and mean vorticity tensor, respectively.

k-u turbulence model does not present any need of special treatments close to the wall, as this model acts effectively as a low Reynolds

number model without need of further modications and therefore,

even though two-layer modeling could be formulated, their

employment in the present analysis would not act as a further

comparison but as a lack of generalization. The model employed in the

present work follows the implementation given by Menter (1994),

and dened Shear-Stress Transport (SST) model where, for the

present case, the low Reynolds number modications of the coefcients, as introduced by Wilcox (Wilcox, 1993) and demonstrated to

improve results in these conditions, are employed. For the present

model the linear formulation of the eddy viscosity was employed

since the non linear formulation is not available in the employed code.

Finally the RST model, which solves the transport equations for

the components of the Reynolds stress tensor is employed with twolayer modelization which acts in a similar way as already described

for k- 3 model two-layer. This model, solving the equations for the

Reynolds stresses, accounts for ow swirl and anisotropy effects, and

therefore considered mandatory in the present study in order to

accomplish a complete comparison of the most suitable turbulence

models. Even though regarded as a general model, one of the RSTs

drawback is the introduction of modelization for all the Reynolds

917

Table 1

Summary of the turbulence models and wall treatment employed in the comparative analysis.1

Turbulence Model

Wall Treatment

low-Re

Two Layer

k-3 cubic

k-u SST

RST

X

X

X

X

a low Reynolds number modeling would imply a higher load of

modelization, which would introduce higher uncertainties and

therefore not satisfactorily for the applications and not commonly

employed for the comparisons.

Hereafter in Table 1 a summary of the models employed and the

wall treatments is shown in order to clarify the comparison held in

the next analysis.

The equations shown in (1) are solved in second-order accuracy

in space. The ow is solved as incompressible and the connection

between continuity and momentum equations is achieved with

Rhie-Chow pressure-velocity coupling combined with the SIMPLE

algorithm.

2.1. Fully developed pipe: evaluation of low Reynolds number ows

Eggels et al. (1994) numerically and later on den Toonder and

Nieuwstadt (1997) experimentally showed the velocity eld of

a developed pipe for low Reynolds numbers (Re 4900). Both

demonstrated that the universal law of the wall, which is valid for fully

turbulent ows, is not suitable to represent the velocity prole in the

log law during low Reynolds number regimes, as shown in Fig. 1. In

particular the log law in this condition is shifted, behavior which

persists as demonstrated by the previous authors up to Re z 10,000.

This consideration leads to think that in conditions of transitional Reynolds number in a pipe, where the ow shows different

non dimensional behavior, the turbulence models and the related

wall treatments, which are developed not based on general physical consideration but set on fully turbulent considerations and

experiments, could introduce discrepancies in comparison with the

real physical conditions.

2.1.1. Geometry and mesh

For this analysis the common application of fully developed

ow, introducing periodic boundary conditions to a short portion of

a circular pipe, was employed. The computational domain was

created in order to achieve a small y (lower than 1 in the rst cell

close to the wall) so that we can employ the same mesh independently for two layer and low Reynolds wall treatments. 20 layers in

the region of y < 20 were created for the boundary layer. The

application of the settings to solve the present case represents

a basic approach in the CFD application and available in the user

guide of every commercial and non-commercial code and for these

reasons skipped in the present explanation.

2.1.2. Results

For the k-3 model the inuence of the two different wall treatments (low-Re or two layer model) was assessed. The related results

are plotted in Fig. 2 a). From the gure the main point is that k-3 low

1

It has to be noticed that the k-u low Reynolds number modeling has actually

a different meaning compared to the k-e low Reynolds number modeling where

damping functions are added to the standard formulation of nt and e. For the k-u

model instead it means that it is solved through the boundary layer, i.e. at low

Reynolds effects but no damping functions are added.

918

Table 2

Comparison of the friction velocity results between the employed

models.

Model

us [m/s]

k-3 cubic low-Re

k-3 cubic Two Layer

RST Two Layer

k-u SST low-Re

0.001282

0.001190

0.001312

0.001315

0.001313

Fig. 1. Non dimensional velocity prole for Re 4900 in comparison with the fully

turbulent log law.

number while the employment of two layer model on the wall

assures the velocity prole to resemble a turbulent prole up to the

buffer region. u prole in this case shows an underprediction in the

center part of the pipe typical of the settings based on the universal

law for fully turbulent pipes. Fig. 2 b) shows a comparison between

k-u SST for transitional ows and RST. The results show a similar non

dimensional velocity prole which provides an underestimation in

the middle of the pipe region. The above mentioned models (k-3 Two

Layer, RST Two Layer and k-u low Re) present a similar evaluation of

the non dimensional velocity prole and all of them give an

underestimation in the central region of the pipe.

Moreover the evaluation of the friction velocity (us) represents an

important characteristic of the ow because it denes the prediction

of the pressure drops in the pipe representing a major design

parameter for piping systems. Table 2 shows that the all models give

different prediction of the behavior close to the wall compared to the

DNS data, in particular k-3 low Reynolds number model gives

underprediction of the value while overestimation is found for the

other models.

These results show that the employment of a two-layer modeling

on the wall (k-3, RST), which was developed for fully turbulent regions

cannot predict accurately the results provided by DNS and experiments regarding the velocity prole and therefore, even though not

shown here, similar conclusions can be done for the turbulent values

(e.g. k, 3, ns) which inuence the nal shape of the velocity. Doubts are

instead shown for the application of the low Reynolds modications

on the k-u SST; indeed from the present results, the modied coefcients developed for the standard formulation of k-u, dont show any

improvement in the application on the Menter modeling.

in which the velocity distributions do not attain forms that are

independent of the position along the pipe axis. The existence of

secondary circulations in curved channels and pipes was demonstrated by various experimental and theoretical studies, in which is

shown that the redirection of the ow in a bend generates a pressure eld that balances the centrifugal forces of the uid. The ow

is characterized by two counter rotating vortices (Dean vortices or

secondary ow of the rst kind) which are generally disposed

symmetrically about the plane of the bend.

Tunstall and Harvey (1968) moreover showed that a mitre bent

(sharp bent) pipe creates an asymmetry on the secondary ows

with a switching in the rotations in clockwise and counterclockwise direction. Subsequent works by Brucker (1998) experimentally and Rutten et al. (2005) show the presence of the switching

phenomenon in highly curved bent pipes for various values of

Reynolds number including transitional ones (e.g. Re 5000). It is

demonstrated that separation occurs at bend geometries R/D z 1

where the curvature of the inner wall is strong and the Reynolds

number is low. This separation region is shown from the experimental results to be unstable, leading the secondary ows to

oscillate with a low frequency phenomenon.

2.2.1. Geometry, spatial discretization and boundary conditions

The geometry and the computational domain were built starting

from the results achieved in the previous chapter. The bent pipe

mesh was created avoiding symmetry planes as described succinctly

in Fig. 3; this choice, which increases notably the computational

domain, was done on the knowledge that the ow in these conditions might experience instability and oscillations of the secondary

ows (Brucker, 1998). The employment of a symmetry plane could

result in the inability to predict this behavior and therefore avoided

during the creation of the grid. For the pipe inlet conditions the

velocity and turbulent proles, provided by the fully developed pipe

calculations (chapter 2.1.2), were employed and applied at three

diameters from the bend inlet, which was considered far enough to

avoid the inuence of the bend.

Fig. 2. Fully developed velocity prole for different turbulence modeling and wall treatment. a) shows the k-3 model comparing between low Re and two layer wall treatment.

b) shows comparison between RST two layer and k-u low Re.

919

Fig. 3. Geometry and mesh for the bent pipe. Dashed arrows represent the ow direction. b) represents the grid on a pipe section and on the symmetry plane.

Fig. 4. Velocity proles at 1D on the bend exit tangent. a) shows the location of the line probes, dashed arrows represent the ow direction; b) axial velocity prole on the

symmetry plane; c) radial velocity prole and d) radial velocity prole on the symmetry plane.

2.2.2. Results

Due to the results achieved in the previous section, the evaluation

of the present case was not performed for the low Reynolds number

k-3 model, whose inlet conditions for the specied geometry would

result in a laminarized prole. Therefore three different models

were compared and the results are shown in Fig. 4 b), c) and d). The

comparison demonstrates that all the models are able to predict the

creation of secondary ows and separation region, however the k-3

model in the cubic formulation and RST are able to predict, with

a reasonable grade of accuracy the axial velocity prole in comparison with the experiment and LES data. On the other hand instead

k-u shows an underprediction in the recirculation region which is

typical for turbulence model not accounting for the streamline

curvature and with a linear description of the eddy viscosity, as

shown in Fig. 4 b). Moreover k-3 cubic model gives a better estimation of the peaks of velocity of the secondary ows in the pipe

section respect to the RST, while k-u fails completely to reproduce

the behavior of the Dean vortices predicting a wrong size of the

recirculation region showing two peaks of velocity which dont join

in the centre of the domain as claried in Fig. 4 c) and d).

The underpredicted velocity prole at the pipe inlet is in some

way hidden in a 90 degree bent pipe, where the most important

feature seems to be the ability to model the anisotropy, task achieved in the present evaluation through cubic formulation (i.e. k- 3)

or Reynolds stress denition (i.e. RST). Therefore the employment

of the above mentioned modelization shows a fair ability to provide

information about bent pipe ows at low Reynolds number.

Moreover another important aspect is that the three models

above have the characteristic to achieve results in steady state

solution which is in contradiction with the experience. All of them

show a characteristic symmetry which seems averaging the instability as shown in Fig. 4 b). This aspect is indeed extremely relevant

in the present evaluation since the modelization should be able to

provide information on the velocity proles as well as the unsteady

nature of the phenomena. Extending the considerations to those

gained for the fully developed pipe therefore, we can assert that

even though the anisotropic nature of the problem is correctly

modeled, on the other hand the non proper modelization of the

viscous affected region, which is responsible in the fully developed

pipe for inaccurate modelization of the turbulent quantities

reecting in an underpredicted velocity prole, is here responsible

for the inability in the prediction of the oscillations which, in

particular during safety analysis, can cause serious underestimation

of the effects of the transients on the structure.

920

3. Conclusions

Two benchmarks for the evaluation of transitional ows were

analyzed through comparison with experiments and accurate

numerical solutions. The fully developed pipe ow shows that

damping functions, employed with k-3 models, predict a laminar

ow which does not satisfy the turbulent characteristics found both

experimentally and numerically (DNS). On the other hand the

employment of a two layer approach on the wall assures the

reproduction of the turbulent prole even though some discrepancies for the evaluation of the us are introduced. Turbulent prole

but with unpredicted normalized velocity is then shown for the k-u

model also.

The 90 bent pipe evaluation instead shows how the anisotropic

models (k-3 cubic and RST) are able to predict with reasonable

accuracy the behavior of the secondary ows which inuence the

velocity prole downstream the bend. The presence of the anisotropic model seems to be the main feature to be able to predict the

phenomenon. These considerations are validated by the behavior of

the SST model which, independently from the accurate inlet

conditions, provide not accurate results for the downstream

velocity prole and secondary ow predictions.

The study shows that for the state of art turbulence models the

one which shows a high generality of application in case of bent

pipes in transitional turbulence seems to be the k-3 model together

with the employment of two layer approach for the wall treatment

which, even though underestimating the prole of the fully

developed ow, is able to capture the main characteristics of the

ow downstream an elbow with strong curvature.

As a nal remark the authors would add that the employment of

low Reynolds number k-3 model, despite the achieved results in

Section 2.1.2, is regarded to be potentially generic and able to

improve the general predictions of the ow, such as the prediction

of the instability which is not accessed via two layer treatment of

the wall. The reasons of its failure are to be imputed to the applied

range of applicability.

This work points out the deciencies and the strength points of

the available turbulence modeling, representing a starting point for

a possible development of a more general approach which could

combine application to high Reynolds number and transitional

ows.

References

Ch. Brucker, 1998.A time-recording DPIC-study of the swirl switching effect on

a 90 bend ow,In: Proceedings of the Eight International Symposium on Flow

Visualization, Sorrento, Italy.

den Toonder, J.M.J., Nieuwstadt, F.T.M., 1997. Reynolds number effects in a turbulent

pipe ow for low to moderate Re. Phys. Fluids 9 (11).

Eggels, J.G.M., Unger, F., Weiss, M.H., Westerweel, J., Adrian, R.J., Friedrich, R.,

Nieuwstadt, F.T.M., 1994. Fully developed turbulent pipe ow: a comparison

between direct numerical simulation and experiment,. J. Fluid Mech. 268, 175.

Hrenya, C.M., Bolio, E.J., Chakrabart, D., Sinclair, J.L., 1995. Comparison of low Reynolds number k-3 turbulence models in predicting fully developed pipe ow.

Chem. Eng. Sc. 50 (12), 1923e1941.

Jones, W.P., Launder, B.E., 1972. The prediction of laminarization with a two-equation model of turbulence. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 15, 301e314.

Lien, F.S., Chen, W.L., and Leschziner, M.A. 1996. Low-Reynolds number eddyviscosity modelling based on non-linear stress-strain/vorticity relations, In:

Proc. 3rd Symp. on Eng. Turbulence Modelling and Measurements, 27e29 May,

Crete, Greece.

Menter, F.R., 1994. Two-equation eddy viscosity turbulence models for engineering

applications. AIAA J. 32 (8).

Patel, V.C., Rodi, W., Scheuerer, G., 1984. Turbulence models for near-wall and low

Reynolds number ows: a review. AIAA J. 23 (9).

Rutten, F., Schroder, W., Meinke, M., 2005. Large eddy simulation of low frequency

oscillations of the Dean vortices in turbulent pipe bend ows. Phys. Fluids

Vol. 17.

Star-CCM 5.02.009 UserGuide.

Tunstall, M.J., Harvey, J.K., 1968. On the effect of a sharp bend in a fully developed

turbulent pipe-ow. J. Fluid Mech. 34 (3), 595e608.

Wilcox, D.C., 1993. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. DCW Industries Inc., La Canada,

California.

Wolfshtein, M., 1968. The velocity and temperature distribution in one-dimensional

ow with turbulence augmentation and pressure gradient. Int. J. Heat Mass

Transfer 12, 301e318.

- 9780521457132_frontmatterUploaded byfelitosegundo
- Xfoil-CFD Performance PredictionUploaded byGerman Godi
- A Review of Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Characteristics of Single and Two Phase FlowUploaded byJessica Ceh
- TurbulenceUploaded byphutd09
- EDEM+CFD+2Phase_Entrainment_TutorialUploaded bybresler_lin
- Bloodflow SolutionUploaded byTaniadi Suria
- 5 LP Dhole Review Article Aug 2011Uploaded bykandahar_spec
- Book Fundamentals of Multi Phase FlowUploaded bymarchorner
- SummaryPhD MarinUploaded bysegomezp
- Lecture Note xUploaded byChristian Nweke
- 18Uploaded byReem Alaa
- FDS 5 Verification GuideUploaded byarunmurthy
- cfx-sstUploaded byAnonymous P8Bt46mk5I
- Final Proposal HELIOS JIPUploaded bynsureshbabu
- ME525 SP2013 Lecture 26Uploaded bymujahidyousaf
- Ship ResistanceUploaded byRaka Aditya
- pi3Uploaded byluis
- MKM99Uploaded bystathiss11
- DeMaerschalckUploaded byRonaldo Saludes
- energies-03-00989Uploaded bylavanyachandran
- Piped servicesUploaded bynishanthaindika
- 1-s2.0-089417779190065Y-mainUploaded bymortezagashti
- 6308f8ad2c45d22732ebUploaded byapi-457792987
- NKSingh_PARubini-AcousticPropagationLESUploaded byNish
- 76.IJMPERDDEC201776Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- Fm 2210061009Uploaded byarifkuet
- AIAA 2010-0351 Detonation Turbulence InteractionUploaded byLuis Felipe Gutierrez Marcantoni
- Shape Optimization of High-Speed Rail by Biomimetic.pdfUploaded byhiryanizam
- DK3162app7Uploaded byFarouk Hamdoon
- Compressor F3Uploaded byJaynie Lee Villaran

- 1310 SummaryUploaded byJames Thomas
- Time-History Seismic Analysis of Masonry BuildingsUploaded byRithyKhouy
- The Laboratory Companion - A Practical Guide to Materials, Equipment, And Technique (G.S. Coyne; Wiley 1997; 0471184225)Uploaded byaymanhefny
- Mathematical model of counter flow v-grove solar air collectorUploaded byErond Perez
- Chapter 5_Gurson model for ductile fracture.pdfUploaded byNguyễn Hữu Hào
- Mathematics-in-the-modern-world.pptxUploaded byJJ G. Malong
- Static Calibration of Electronic Transducer-Based PressureUploaded byJose Luis Nava Hernandez
- composite design for severe fire.pdfUploaded byECC
- 1-s2.0-S030626190800216X-mainUploaded bysouki1
- ap04_physics_jacob_ho_40050.pdfUploaded byJabar Bazeed
- Drilling Bits And Hydraulics Calculation.pdfUploaded bySpartacus Rashid
- page_6599737Uploaded byRobin Celis
- Cantilever WallUploaded byRajesh Kollipara
- Ceng 3204 Lecture NoteUploaded byDanielKibretTeshome
- Proof of Normal DistributionUploaded byvc94
- Direct Shear TestUploaded byObaid Khalid
- 36 HydrogelsUploaded bySubhasish Das
- TEXROPE Synchronous Drive Design Manual SH1 (Pg 42, 46-47)Uploaded byDiego Poveda
- Dragon Molecular Descriptor ListUploaded byLuis Ur
- D 2008Uploaded byAsep Thea
- Thesis of Xiong JieUploaded byravee007
- AssignmentsUploaded byAshok Pradhan
- Make Your Own Orgone Cloud BusterUploaded bybammer1
- Lecture 4 - TorsionUploaded byEng Abdulahi Haji
- 859872_fm.pdfUploaded byduazo2009
- Lec6Uploaded byspitzersglare
- Slope Stability analysis and road safety.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 5exSer
- ArusUploaded byRadinal
- ISEMA_Proceedings_1999.pdfUploaded bylazaros
- Controler AMN IR3210000Uploaded byCorban Mihai