Simulationof Subcooled Boilingin Multiphase CFDCode CFX

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/339285275
Simulation of Subcooled Boiling in Multiphase CFD Code CFX
Conference Paper · October 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 961
3 authors, including:
Ladislav Vyskocil Pavel Zacha

ÚJV Řež, a. s. Czech Technical University in Prague
33 PUBLICATIONS 338 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 45 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
CFD simulations of subcooled boiling and critical heat flux View project
Advanced Analytical Tools for Severe Accident Simulations View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Pavel Zacha on 08 July 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

29th Symposium of AER on VVER Reactor Physics and Reactor Safety
Energoland Mochovce, NPP Mochovce, Slovakia, October 14-18, 2019
Simulation of Subcooled Boiling in Multiphase CFD Code CFX
Ladislav Vyskočil1, Václav Železný1,2, and Pavel Zácha2

1
: ÚJV Řež a. s., Dept. of Safety Analyses, Hlavní 130, 250 68 Husinec-Řež, Czech Republic
2
: Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technická 4,
166 07 Praha 6, Czech Republic
Abstract
This paper presents a validation of multiphase Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code
Ansys CFX 18 on selected experiments with the subcooled boiling flow. Ansys CFX code can
simulate multiphase flow by solving three balance equations for each phase (Euler-Euler
approach). Boiling on the heated wall can be simulated with the model proposed by Kurul and
Podowski. A set of mathematical models of physical phenomena in boiling bubbly flow was
selected and tested on the following experiments with subcooled boiling: DEBORA experiments,
ASU experiments, FRIGG FT-6a experiment, and Bartolomej et al. experiment. The DEBORA
experiment is a vertical pipe with a heated wall. The working fluid is freon R-12. The ASU
boiling experiment is a vertical annular channel with a heated inner wall and freon R-113. The
FRIGG FT-6a experiment is a vertical channel with 6 heated rods and boiling water. The
Bartolomej experiment is a vertical heated pipe with boiling water. It was found out that CFX
code can reasonably reproduce measured data in all these experiments. At the end of this paper,
we present an application of this modeling approach to the real case with a complicated
geometry: simulation of subcooled boiling in the VVER-1000 fuel assembly with bent rods. The
presented work was carried out within the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic (TA ČR)
project TH02020360 “Modeling of the critical heat flux with computational fluid dynamics
codes“.
1. INTRODUCTION
The convective subcooled boiling occurs in the flow when heated walls of the channel are
superheated while liquid bulk is subcooled at a given operating pressure. The convective
subcooled boiling on the heated wall is being used in many industrial applications. The
advantage of subcooled boiling over the other methods of heat removal is a high heat transfer
coefficient – due to a large amount of energy associated with the latent heat transfer and due to
the efficient local unsteady cooling of a heated wall by liquid during bubble departure.
Subcooled boiling can be used for removing high heat flux (104 – 107 W/m2) from the wall at a
relatively small temperature difference.
The convective subcooled boiling occurs in the core of the Pressurized Water Reactor and
Boiling Water Reactor. For a successful CFD simulation of boiling flow in fuel assemblies of
these reactors, the CFD code must be able to simulate two-phase flow with boiling. In this paper,
we present a validation of multiphase CFD code Ansys CFX 18 [1,2] on selected experiments
with the subcooled boiling flow. Ansys CFX code can simulate multiphase flow by solving three
balance equations for each phase (Euler-Euler approach). Boiling on the heated wall can be
simulated with the model proposed by Kurul and Podowski [4]. We have selected a set of
mathematical models of physical phenomena in boiling bubbly flow and tested the modeling
approach on the following experiments with subcooled boiling: DEBORA experiments, ASU
experiments, FRIGG experiment, and Bartolomej et al. experiment. At the end of this paper, we
present an application of this modeling approach to the real case with a complicated geometry:
simulation of subcooled boiling in the VVER-1000 fuel assembly with bent rods.
2. MODELING OF CONVECTIVE BOILING FLOW IN ANSYS CFX CODE

The modeling approach is as follows. Two phases are modeled with the Euler-Euler model. The
primary phase is liquid, and the secondary is vapor bubbles. The averaged balance equations for
continuity and momentum are solved for each phase. The same pressure is shared by the two
phases. Energy is solved for the liquid phase. The vapor phase is assumed to be at saturation
temperature.
The SST k-omega model [2] is used for modeling the liquid turbulence. The influence of the
bubbles on the liquid turbulence is modeled by Sato enhanced eddy viscosity model [3]. The
dispersed phase zero equation is used for turbulence modeling in vapor.
The RPI wall-heat-flux-splitting model by Kurul and Podowski [4] is used for the simulation of
subcooled boiling. Nucleate boiling on the wall begins when the wall surface temperature is
0.05 K above the saturation temperature. Downstream of the onset of nucleate boiling, the wall
heat flux is split into three parts: single phase liquid heat flux, quenching heat flux and
evaporation heat flux. Fluid properties in this model are taken from the fixed nondimensional
distance y+ = 250. The bubble departure diameter is calculated from the correlation by
Tolubinsky and Konstanchuk [5]. Wall nucleation site density is calculated from correlation by
Lemmert and Chawla [6]. The liquid quenching heat transfer coefficient is calculated from
correlation by Del Valle and Kenning [7].
Interfacial momentum transfer is modeled by the following forces. Drag force is modelled by the
Ishii and Zuber correlation [8]. This correlation was created for bubbly flows. Drag coefficient
calculation is based on the local flow regime. Interfacial lift force is modeled by the Tomiyama
model [9]. This model is applicable to the spherical or distorted elliptical bubbles. The model can
capture a reversal of the lift force. Virtual mass force is modeled by the Drew and Lahey
equation [10]. Turbulent dispersion force is modelled by the Favre averaged drag model [2, 11].
This is based on the Favre or mass weighted average of the interphase drag force. Wall
lubrication force is not modeled in our simulations.
Interface to liquid heat transfer is modeled by the Ranz-Marshall correlation [12-13]. Interface to
vapor heat transfer is not modeled, the vapor is assumed to be always at saturation temperature.
Interfacial mass transfer is directly related to interfacial heat transfer.
Distribution of the mean bubble diameter in the flow is modeled by a simple model that
considers liquid subcooling and liquid shear strain rate. This model was calibrated in simulations
of DEBORA experiments.
The physical properties of water (liquid and vapor) are calculated by the IAPWS-IF97 tables
(International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam - Industrial Formulation 1997).
Simulations of all cases presented in this work were performed as steady state problems, with
high-resolution advection schemes for all solved equations. The coupled scheme was used for
volume fraction coupling.
3. SIMULATION OF THE DEBORA EXPERIMENTS

The modeling approach described in chapter 2 was tested on DEBORA experiments with
subcooled boiling. DEBORA experiments were carried out at the CEA in France [14-15]. The
test section of the DEBORA experiment is a vertical heated pipe with Freon R12 flowing
upwards. At the tube inlet, R12 is subcooled liquid. Refrigerant is heated as it flows upwards and
vapor bubbles are created on the wall surface. These bubbles detach from the wall and are
dispersed in the turbulent flow. Bubbles condense partly in the core region of the tube. The
internal diameter of the pipe is 19.2 mm. The whole pipe can be divided into three sections: inlet
adiabatic section – 1 m long, heated section – 3.5 m long and outlet adiabatic section 0.5 m long.
Void fraction, vapor velocity, mean bubble diameter, and interfacial area profiles were measured
at the end of the heated section. Unfortunately, liquid temperature profiles were not measured in
test series available in the open literature.
Simulations of DEBORA experiments with CFX code were performed in the axisymmetric domain
covering a 10° wedge of the pipe (Fig. 1). This wedge is confined with symmetry cutting planes. Inlet and
outlet adiabatic sections are included in the computational domain. The resolution of the base mesh is 26
cells along the radius of the pipe and 2000 cells along the pipe height. Solution grid independence was
tested on refined mesh with 50x5000 cells (Fig. 3).
Fig. 1 Computational mesh (end part) for simulation of DEBORA experiments
Examples of results from simulations of two DEBORA cases are presented in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. These
figures show radial profiles at the end of the heated section, comparison of measured and calculated data.
Parameters of the simulated cases are in Table 1. Results obtained with CFX code are in a reasonably
good agreement with the experiment.
Table 1 Parameters of the selected DEBORA experiments

Test p G qw Tin Tsat Xeq
bar kg/m /s W/m
2 2
°C °C -
29G1P30W12Te68.1_1 30.08 1005 58230 67.89 94.136 0.1218
29G1P30W12Te72.9_1 30.07 1004.8 58260 72.65 94.136 0.1953
p is pressure, G is mass flux, qw is wall heat flux, Tin is the inlet temperature, Tsat is saturation
temperature, Xeq is the exit equilibrium quality.
Fig. 2 Simulation of DEBORA case Tin = 67.89 °C, Xeq = 0.1218. Comparison of results from CFD
simulation and experimental data.
Fig. 3 Simulation of DEBORA case Tin = 72.65 °C, Xeq = 0.1953. Comparison of results from CFD
simulation and experimental data. CFD simulation was performed on two different meshes.
4. SIMULATION OF THE ASU EXPERIMENTS

Experiments on subcooled boiling were carried out at Arizona State University (ASU) [16-19].
The test section of the ASU subcooled boiling experiment (Fig. 4) is a vertical channel with an
annular cross section. The inner tube (outer diameter = 15.8 mm) from stainless steel is heated.
Outer tube (inner diameter = 38.1 mm) is transparent and is considered adiabatic. 0.521 m long
section of the outer tube in the measuring section is made from quartz glass, the rest of the tube
is from Pyrex. The total length of the channel is 3.66 m. 2.75 m long upper part of the inner tube
is electrically heated, lower 0.91 m long part is not heated. Working fluid is freon R113. Local
measurements of radial profiles of flow variables are performed at one cross section 1.986 m
above the beginning of the heated section.
Simulations of the ASU experiments with CFX code were performed in the axisymmetric domain
covering a 10° wedge of the annular channel (Fig. 5). This wedge is confined with symmetry cutting
planes. The computational domain covers 0.91 m long inlet adiabatic section and 2.75 m long heated
section. The computational mesh has resolution 24 cells along radius x (364 +1100) cells along the
adiabatic and heated section. This mesh is fine enough to obtain a grid-independent solution.
Fig. 4 Test section of ASU subcooled boiling flow experiment [18]
Table 2 Parameters of the selected ASU experiments

pmp Tin Tsat G qw
experiment [bar] [°C] [°C] [kg/s/m2] [kW/m2]
tp5 2.69 50.2 80.57 784 95
tp6 2.69 50.2 80.57 784 116
pmp is pressure in measuring section, Tin is inlet temperature, Tsat is saturation temperature at
pressure pmp, G is mass flux and qw is heat flux at the heated inner wall.
Fig. 5 Computational domain (top view) for the simulation of the ASU experiments (10° section)
Examples of results from simulations of two ASU experiments are presented in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. These
figures show radial profiles at the measuring section, comparison of measured and calculated data.
Parameters of the simulated cases are in Table 2. Calculated void fraction profiles and liquid temperature
profiles are in good agreement with the experiment. The code tends to overpredict liquid velocity near the
heated wall.
Fig. 6 Simulation of ASU experiment tp5. Comparison of results from CFD simulation and experimental
data. R* is dimensionless radius, R* = 0 at heated tube, R* = 1 at outer tube. Gas velocity was not measured.
Fig. 7 Simulation of ASU experiment tp6. Comparison of results from CFD simulation and experimental
data. R* is dimensionless radius, R* = 0 at heated tube, R* = 1 at outer tube.
5. SIMULATION OF THE FRIGG EXPERIMENT

Experiments with subcooled boiling in rod bundles were performed in FRIGG experimental loop
[20-22]. These experiments simulated conditions in the Boiling Water Reactor. We have
performed CFD simulation of experiment FT-6a with rod bundle with 6 heated rods in the
adiabatic tube. The geometry of the rod bundle is shown in Fig. 8. The outer diameter of the
heated rods is 13.8 mm. Axes of the outer rods lie on a circle of radius 21.6 mm. The inner
diameter of the outer adiabatic tube is 71 mm. The heated section is 4.22 m long. Experimental
data are available for the first 2 m of the heated length where bubbly boiling flow occurs.
Measurements of void fraction were performed in three zones in the bundle cross section, see
zone 1 – zone 3 in Fig. 8.
Parameters of the experiment in FT-6a rod bundle are as follows:

- The upward flow of boiling water
- Mass flux: 1163 kg/m2/s
- Inlet pressure: 5 MPa
- Wall heat flux at heated rods: 0.522 MW/m2
- Subcooling of the liquid at the inlet: 4.5 K
Fig. 8 Experiment in the FRIGG loop: FT-6a rod bundle, horizontal cross section [21].
The CFD simulation was performed in one-tenth of the cross section utilizing symmetry of the
case (Fig. 9). The base mesh contains 580,000 wedge and hexahedral cells. The other two
meshes were created for the solution grid dependence tests: coarse mesh with 169,000 cells and
fine mesh with 6M tetrahedral and wedge cells. A grid-independent solution was obtained on the
base mesh.
Computational mesh: 580,000

cells: wedges and hexahedra
Fig. 9 Computational domain and mesh for the simulation of the FRIGG FT-6a experiment
Results from the simulation of the FT-6a experiments are presented in Fig. 10. Results are in a
reasonable agreement with experimental data, the CFD code slightly underestimates mixing in
the rod bundle. The void fraction in Zone 1 surrounding the central tube is overpredicted and
void fraction in Zone 2 and Zone 3 is underpredicted.
Fig. 10 Results from simulation of the FT-6a experiments: evolution of void fraction along the vertical
coordinate in Zone 1 – Zone 3 and cross sectional mean void fraction. Simulation on three different meshes
and comparison with experimental data.
6. SIMULATION OF THE BARTOLOMEJ EXPERIMENT

Bartolomej et al. [23,24] performed experiments of boiling flow in water in a vertical tube. The
heated length of the pipe is 2 m, the radius of the pipe is 7.7 mm. Parameters of the simulated
experiment are as follows: pressure 4.5 MPa, inlet temperature 199.2 °C, saturation temperature
257.44 °C, mass flux 900 kg/m2/s, wall heat flux 570 kW/m2. The CFD simulation was
performed in a 10° wedge of the pipe, in the same manner as in the simulation of the DEBORA
experiments (Fig. 1). Three computational meshes were created, coarse mesh with 11x1250 cells,
base mesh with 17x2500 cells and fine mesh with 35x5000 cells. A grid-independent solution
was obtained on the base mesh.
Results from the simulation of the Bartolomej et al. experiment are presented in Fig. 11. The
CFD code slightly overestimated void fraction. The calculated wall temperature was in
reasonable agreement with the measured data.
Fig. 11 Results from simulation of the Bartolomej et al. experiment, the evolution of cross-section mean
void fraction and wall temperature along the tube height. Simulations on three different meshes and
comparison with experimental data.
7. SIMULATION OF SUBCOOLED BOILING IN THE VVER-1000 FUEL ASSEMBLY

WITH BENT RODS
The modeling approach described in chapter 2 was applied in the simulation of subcooled boiling
in the fuel assembly of VVER-1000 reactor with bent neighboring rods. Computational domain
(Fig. 12) covers two neighboring bent rods, surrounding 8 rods and a simplified model of mixing
grid with vanes. Fig. 12 shows a vertical location of the computational domain in the fuel
assembly. The domain contains two spacer grids. The smallest gap between the bent rods is in
the middle between the grids. The solution domain inlet is placed in the middle between spacer
grid No.4 and No.5 (vertical coordinate z = 2.178 m). The vertical velocity at the inlet is 4.972
m/s. The temperature at the solution domain inlet is 319.3 °C. It was calculated from the heat
balance along the whole height of the fuel assembly. The temperature at the fuel assembly inlet
was assumed to be 293.8 °C. Wall heat fluxes on all the rods are the same, they are shown in Fig.
14. The solution domain outlet is on the top edge of the spacer grid No.6 (vertical coordinate z =
2.888 m). Absolute pressure at the solution domain outlet is 15.7 MPa. The saturation
temperature at this pressure is 345.83 °C.
Several cases with different gap sizes were simulated. Computational mesh for every solved case
contained approximately 28 million of tetrahedral and wedge cells.
Fig. 12 Computational domain for the simulation of subcooled boiling on the bent rods in fuel assembly,
top view. Bent rods are in the middle of the domain. A spacer grid with simplified vanes can be seen.
Fig. 13 Vertical location of the computational domain in the fuel assembly. Green lines show the inlet and
outlet of the computational domain. The red arrow denotes the smallest gap between bent rods.
Fig. 14 Wall heat flux on all rods in the computational domain.
Fig. 15 presents results from the case with the gap between bent rods decreased to 1/4 of normal
size (0,91 mm). A small amount of steam is produced by subcooled boiling on bent rods and also
on other straight rods. Void fraction is very small, a maximum of 1.6 %. Not much influence of
rod bending on critical heat flux can be expected in this case.
Fig. 16 shows what happens with void fraction when the bent rods almost touch, the gap between
them is decreased to 1/24 of the normal size (0.15 mm). The void fraction in the narrow passage
increased to 27%. In this case, rod bending will have an impact on the critical heat flux on the
bent rods. The liquid temperature in the narrow gap is higher than anywhere else in the domain,
wall temperature 7°C above saturation temperature (Fig. 17). The liquid velocity in the narrow
gap is very small (Fig. 18).
Fig. 15 Case with gap decreased to 1/4 of normal size (0,91 mm). Void fraction [-] at the horizontal section
where the gap between rods is minimal.
Fig. 16 Case with gap decreased to 1/24 of normal size (0.15 mm). Void fraction [-] at the horizontal section
where the gap between rods is minimal.
Fig. 17 Case with gap decreased to 1/24 of normal size (0.15 mm). Liquid temperature [K] at the horizontal
section where the gap between rods is minimal (scale 324.65°C – 353.15°C)
Fig. 18 Case with gap decreased to 1/24 of normal size (0.15 mm). Liquid velocity [m/s] at the horizontal
section where the gap between rods is minimal
8. CONCLUSIONS
CFD code Ansys CFX 18 can be applied to the simulations of boiling bubbly flow. A set of
mathematical models of physical phenomena in boiling bubbly flow was selected and
successfully tested on various experiments with boiling flow. In most cases, the maximum void
fraction in the simulation was overpredicted with comparison to experiment, mixing was
underpredicted. The results are on the safe side of the nuclear safety evaluation point of view.
This modeling approach was applied in the case with very complicated geometry.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Presented work was carried out within the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic (TA ČR)
project TH02020360 “Modeling of the critical heat flux with computational fluid dynamics
codes“.
REFERENCES
1. ANSYS CFX-Solver Modeling Guide, Release 18.0, January 2017. ANSYS, Inc.,
Southpointe, 2600 ANSYS Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317.
2. ANSYS CFX-Solver Theory Guide, Release 18.0, January 2017. ANSYS, Inc., Southpointe,
2600 ANSYS Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317.
3. Sato, Y., Sadatomi, M., Sekoguchi, K: Momentum and heat transfer in two phase bubble
flow-I. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 7, 167–177, 1981.
4. Kurul, N., Podowski, M.Z.: “Multidimensional Effects in Forced Convection Subcooled
Boiling”, Proceedings of the 9th International Heat Transfer Conference, Jerusalem, Israel,
21-26 August (1990).
5. Tolubinski V.I., Kostanchuk D.M.: Vapour bubbles growth rate and heat transfer intensity at
subcooled water boiling, 4th Int. Heat Transfer Conference, Vol. 5, paper No. B-2.8, Paris,
1970.
6. Lemmert, M., Chawla, J.M.: Influence of Flow Velocity on Surface Boiling Heat Transfer
Coefficient. In Hahne E., Grigull: Heat Transfer in Boiling, Academic Press and Hemisphere
1977.
7. Del Valle, V.H., Kenning, D.B.R.: Subcooled Flow Boiling at High Heat Flux. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 28, no.10, pp. 1907-1920, 1985.
8. Ishii M., Zuber N.: Drag coefficient and relative velocity in bubbly, droplet or particulate
flows, AIChE Journal, 25(5), pp. 843-855 (1979).
9. Tomiyama A.: Struggle with computational bubble dynamics. ICMF'98, 3rd Int. Conf. Multiphase
Flow, Lyon, France, pp. 1-18, June 8-12, 1998.
10. Drew D. A., Lahey R. T. Jr.: Application of General Constitutive Principles to the Derivation of
Multidimensional Two-Phase Flow Equations. Int. J. Multiphase Flow, Vol.7, pp.243-264, 1979.
11. Burns A.D.B., Frank T., Hamill I., Shi J.-M.: The Favre Averaged Drag Model for Turbulent
Dispersion in Eulerian Multi-Phase Flows. 5th International Conference on Multiphase Flow, ICMF-
2004, Yokohama, Japan, 2004.
View publication stats

12. Ranz, W. E., Marshall, W. R. Jr.: Evaporation from Drops, Part I. Chem. Eng. Prog., 48(3):
141{146, March 1952.
13. Ranz, W. E., Marshall, W. R. Jr.: Evaporation from Drops, Part II. Chem. Eng. Prog., 48(4):
173{180, April 1952.
14. Manon, E.: Contribution a l'analyse et a la modélisation locale des écoulements bouillants
sous-saturés dans les conditions des réacteurs a eau sous pression. These de Doctorat. Ecole
Centrale Paris (2000).
15. Garnier J., Manon E., Cubizolles G.: Local measurement on flow boiling of Refrigerant 12 in
a vertical tube, Multiphase Science and Technology, Vol.13, pp.1-58 (2001).
16. Roy R.P., Velidandla V., Kalra S.P., Peturaud P.: Local Measurements in the Two-Phase Region of
Turbulent Subcooled Boiling Flow, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol.116, ASME 1994.
17. Roy R.P., Velidandla V., Kalra S.P.: Velocity Field in Turbulent Subcooled Boiling Flow, Journal of
Heat Transfer, Vol.119, ASME 1997.
18. Roy R.P., Kang S., Zarate J.A., Laporta A.: Turbulent Subcooled Boiling Flow – Experiments and
Simulations, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol.124, ASME 2002.
19. Kang S., Roy R.P.: Vapor Phase Measurements in Subcooled Boiling Flow, Journal of Heat Transfer,
124, 1207-1209, 2002.
20. Nylund O., Becker K.M., Eklund R., Gelius O., Haga I., Hansson P.T., Hernborg G., Akerhielm F.:
Measurements of hydrodynamics characteristics, instability thresholds, and burnout limits for 6-rod
clusters in natural and forced circulation, FRIGG-1 report, ASEA and AB Atomenergi, Sweden, 1967.
21. Anglart H., Nylund O.: CFD application to prediction of void distribution in two-phase bubbly flows
in rod bundles, Nuclear Engineering and Design 163, 81–98, 1996.
22. Anglart H., Nylund O., Kurul N., Podowski M.Z.: CFD prediction of flow and phase distribution in
fuel assemblies with spacers, Nuclear Engineering and Design 177, 215-228, 1997.
23. Bartolomej G.G., Brantov V.G., Molochnikov Y.S., Kharitonov Y.V., Solodkii V.A., Batashova G.N.,
Mikhailov V.N.: An experimental investigation of the true volumetric vapour content with subcooled
boiling tubes”, Thermal Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 20-22, 1982.
24. Bartolomej G.G., Chanturiya V.M.: Experimental study of true void fraction when boiling subcooled
water in vertical tubes, Thermal Engineering, Vol. 14, pp. 123-128., 1967.

Simulationof Subcooled Boilingin Multiphase CFDCode CFX

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simulationof Subcooled Boilingin Multiphase CFDCode CFX

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Simulation of Subcooled Boiling in Multiphase CFD Code CFX

Conference Paper · October 2019

Ladislav Vyskocil Pavel Zacha

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Advanced Analytical Tools for Severe Accident Simulations View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Simulation of Subcooled Boiling in Multiphase CFD Code CFX

Ladislav Vyskočil1, Václav Železný1,2, and Pavel Zácha2

2. MODELING OF CONVECTIVE BOILING FLOW IN ANSYS CFX CODE

3. SIMULATION OF THE DEBORA EXPERIMENTS

Fig. 1 Computational mesh (end part) for simulation of DEBORA experiments

Table 1 Parameters of the selected DEBORA experiments

4. SIMULATION OF THE ASU EXPERIMENTS

Fig. 4 Test section of ASU subcooled boiling flow experiment [18]

Table 2 Parameters of the selected ASU experiments

5. SIMULATION OF THE FRIGG EXPERIMENT

Parameters of the experiment in FT-6a rod bundle are as follows:

Computational mesh: 580,000

6. SIMULATION OF THE BARTOLOMEJ EXPERIMENT

7. SIMULATION OF SUBCOOLED BOILING IN THE VVER-1000 FUEL ASSEMBLY

Fig. 14 Wall heat flux on all rods in the computational domain.

29th Symposium of AER on VVER Reactor Physics and Reactor Safety

You might also like