Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

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

The challenge of modeling fuel–coolant interaction: Part I – Premixing

Renaud Meignen a,∗ , Stephane Picchi b , Julien Lamome b , Bruno Raverdy c ,
Sebastian Castrillon Escobar a , Gregory Nicaise c
a
Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, IRSN/PSN-RES/SAG, BP 3, 13115 Saint-Paul-Lez-Durance Cedex, France
b
Communication & Systèmes, 22 avenue Galilée, 92350 Le Plessis Robinson, France
c
IRSN/PSN-RES/SAG, BP3, 92362 Fontenay aux Roses Cedex, France

h i g h l i g h t s

• We present the status modeling of the fuel–coolant interaction premixing stage in the computer code MC3D.
• We also propose a general state of the art, highlighting recent improvements in understanding and modeling, remaining difficulties, controversies and
needs.
• We highlight the need for improving the understanding of the melt fragmentation and oxidation.
• The verification basis is presented.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fuel–coolant interaction is a complex mixing process that can occur during the course of a severe acci-
Received 5 April 2014 dent in a nuclear power plant involving core melting and relocation. Under certain circumstances, a steam
Received in revised form 5 August 2014 explosion might develop during the mixing of the melt and the water and induce a loss of integrity of
Accepted 13 August 2014
the containment. Even in the absence of an explosion, studying the mixing phenomenon is also of high
interest due to its strong impact on the progression of the accident (debris bed formation, hydrogen pro-
duction). This article is the first of two aiming at presenting both a status of research and understanding of
fuel–coolant interaction and the main characteristics of the model developed in the 3-dimensional com-
puter code MC3D. It is devoted to the premixing phase whereas the second is related to the explosion
phase. A special attention is given to major difficulties, uncertainties and needs for further improve-
ments in knowledge and modeling. We discuss more particularly the major phenomena that are melt
fragmentation and film boiling heat transfer and the challenges related to modeling melt solidification
and oxidation. Some highlights related to the code verification are finally given.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
During a severe accident in a nuclear power plant (PWR, BWR),
the core may melt and flow down into the reactor vessel lower
plenum. In case of failure of the vessel, the melt will then flow
down in the reactor pit. If the core melt, called “corium”, relocates
in a region containing liquid water, either in the vessel (in-vessel
situation), or in the pit (ex-vessel), then melt and water will enter in
a complex thermohydrodynamical interaction called fuel–coolant
interaction. The most straightforward result is the fragmentation
and dispersion of the melt in the water. Depending on the con-
ditions, the melt length scale of the fragmented part (drops) will
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 442199114.
E-mail address: renaud.meignen@irsn.fr (R. Meignen).
be of the order of some millimeters. The melt drops will rapidly
cool down and settle on the vessel bottom or on the pit floor. If the
fragmentation is complete and if melt drops are sufficiently cooled
to solidify, the melt will form a so-called debris bed. This debris
bed might further be cooled down again by the water, which might
stop the melt progression. This stage is called the premixing of the
fuel–coolant interaction. However, the flow during the premixing
might also enter a critical phase and further destabilize to produce
an energetic event called steam explosion which may endanger
the containment integrity. The triggering of a steam explosion may
occur under several mechanisms and cannot yet be predicted for
practical situations. Then, particularly in reactor accident analysis,
it still has to be considered as a stochastic event.
Whatever the situation, it is now clear that the sole study of
the explosion phenomenon is not sufficient to eliminate the risk of
loss of containment integrity in common situations. First realized

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.08.029
0029-5493/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
512 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527
Fig. 1. The general issue of ex-vessel fuel–coolant interaction.
studies hypothesized premixing configurations where important
mitigating effects (void and solidification) could not be a priori
postulated and were not considered. This led to unrealistic high
potential pressure loads on containment structures. It was then
found that a more precise characterization of the premixing, i.e.
the initial state of the explosion, was necessary to assess the risk.
FCI studies, in the frame of NPP severe accident analyses, started
with the investigation of the so-called ␣-mode which was pre-
sumed to be one of the major risks of containment failure (NRC,
1975). An important step was done by Theofanous and Yuen (1995)
who applied the so-called ROAAM (risk oriented accident analysis
methodology, Theofanous, 1996), using PM-ALPHA and ESPROSE
codes (Theofanous et al., 1999a,b) to characterize the risk and con-
cluded to the low probability of failure of the containment through
this mode. Theofanous even questioned its physical feasibility.
Nowadays, this particular risk is still estimated as very limited.
However, the possibility of projection of objects of any kind on the
containment wall after the upper vessel failure is certainly not to
be totally discarded, particularly if the upper part of the vessel is
hot. Further, the probability of failure of the lower part of the ves-
sel itself was considered and the analyses made in particular in the
frame of the SERENA-1 project (OECD, 2006) led to the conclusion
that this risk is also weak, provided that the vessel strength is not
affected by aging or heating. The focus regarding the risk of steam
explosion is then now put on potential explosive interactions in the
reactor pit, if the vessel comes to fail and the corium to flow into a
flooded pit. It is nonetheless important to stress that non-explosive
interactions in the vessel is still an important issue if one wants to
be able to capture adequately the subsequent global pressurization,
hydrogen production and formation of the debris bed.
Restricting our attention to the ex-vessel situation, Fig. 1
provides a sketch of the general issue of fuel–coolant interaction.
This figure gives links between each individual process with a
rough classification that might be subject to discussion: simply
not addressed for various reasons, weakly addressed, in general
due to starting studies, or fully addressed, i.e. taken in serious
consideration, whatever the level of accuracy. FCI is seen to have
numerous impacts, steam explosion being one of them. The story
then starts with the failure of the vessel and flowing of the liquid
corium into the flooded pit. The melt starts to mix with the water
(premixing stage) and the resulting melt droplets (of the order of
some millimeters) exchange heat with the coolant, leading to a
more or less intense boiling. This mixing stage has several impacts.
First, it may provide an initial state to a possible steam explosion,
following some triggering event. However, if no steam explosion
occurs, the mixing itself may endanger directly the containment
through a global pressurization resulting from the boiling process,
or even the internal structures1 themselves by local pressurization
of the pit, although this later case seems potentially dangerous only
in extreme situations with high vessel pressures and large breaks.
The third physical issue of the mixing phase is the production of a
debris bed whose characteristics will be a function of fragmentation
and solidification of the melt. Depending on the state of this bed
(porosity, particle size, geometrical configuration), the melt might
be cooled definitely, which would terminate the melt progression.
The coolability issue is also obviously dependent on the amount
of water remaining in the cavity after the mixing process. Last, all
experiments show that oxidation should very easily occur during
this fast transient. This should lead to a fast and massive production
of hydrogen that might lead to a potentially explosive atmosphere.
It is also to be noticed that a steam explosion with little mechan-
ical effects would nevertheless modify the following of the mixing
phenomenon in a way that cannot be handled at the moment.
In contrast with several other areas in nuclear severe accident
studies (e.g. MCCI), it can be highlighted that the FCI problem was
rapidly tackled through the development of complex multiphase
CFD (CMFD) tools. The motivation for the development of such
tools is probably the recognition of the numerous highly non-linear
interactions that should hardly be described with simple 0-D mod-
els without an in-depth understanding of the phenomena. Several
codes have thus been developed with various levels of complexity
and hypotheses of modeling (Meignen et al., 2005), among which
we will cite the 1-dimensional TEXAS (Kim and Corradini, 1978),
the 2-dimensional JASMINE (Moriyama et al., 2006) and the 3-
dimensional PM-ALPHA (Theofanous et al., 1999a,b) and JEMI codes
(Schröder et al., 2009).
The computer code MC3D is devoted to multiphase thermal-
hydraulic flow studies and evaluations in the field of nuclear safety
(Berthoud and Valette, 1994). Its field of applications has evolved
several times and its major use now concerns the evaluation of
(molten) fuel–coolant interaction (FCI) in power and experimental
reactors. Two models describing the premixing and the explosion
stages were developed. Note that the premixing model is also being
used for the evaluation of the melt dispersion during a DCH event
(Meignen and Janin, 2010) and for debris bed cooling (Pohlner et al.,
2014).
The objective of this paper is double: presenting the current sta-
tus of development of the premixing models in MC3D (version 3.7),
and, through this presentation, highlighting the existing difficulties
and challenges for a sufficient resolution of the problem,2 conclud-
ing by the perspectives of improvements for the near future. This
article is the first of two aiming at presenting the general status
of FCI modeling through a presentation of MC3D code. The second
paper is devoted to the explosion modeling. The reading of these
papers might be complemented by a short review of recent pro-
gresses made in this area and ranking of priorities by Meignen et al.
(2014b).
After a short highlight on premixing phenomena, a general
description of the mathematical model is provided. Then the key
1
By “internal structures”, we mean the reactor pit, floors and various walls.
2
“Resolution” is to be understood here in the sense of understanding and ade-
quate modeling. The term “sufficient” is employed to mean that the “resolution”
level must be considered regarding adequate objectives in terms of modeling and
confidence to extrapolations to reactor situations.
 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527
Fig. 2. Fuel–coolant interactions in both premixing and explosion stages.
physical phenomena modeling are described and discussed with
emphasis on the validation and uncertainties. The major elements
of qualification and global behavior of the models are then pre-
sented before concluding on the needs for further developments.
2. The challenge of modeling FCI premixing
The objective of a premixing code is to describe the dispersion
of a coherent melt jet into a coolant fluid (water, sodium . . .), its
fragmentation, the state regarding solidification and the impact on
the coolant, e.g. local void (vapor and hydrogen) production. This
evaluation may serve to give initial conditions for an evaluation of
the steam explosion risk, but also simply to give the evolution of the
accident during this short but complex event: debris constitution,
hydrogen production, local and global pressurization.
Both phases of premixing and explosion are driven by the com-
plex interaction depicted in Fig. 2. However, the steam explosion
is a stage where the thermal aspects are much more important
whereas premixing might still be considered as hydrodynamically
driven, although the complexity of premixing also arises from the
heat transfer from the melt to coolant.
The premixing stage is characterized by:
 time scales with orders of magnitude ranging from milliseconds
(e.g. bubble condensation) to some seconds for the overall mix-
ing phenomena;
 melt size scales of several orders of magnitude going from some
few millimeters (size of particles, even below if we consider the
whole size spectrum) to about 1 m (potential jet diameter in
the ex-vessel situation and scale of jet length and melt-coolant
mixture);
Fig. 3. The four steps for achievement of determination of fuel–coolant interaction for application to steam explosion and debris bed formation. The main topics and of the
two phases of SERENA program are indicated.
513
 strong non-equilibrium heat transfers involving temperatures
from 300 to 3000 K and pressures from 1 to ∼160 atm (PWRs, if
the vessel depressurization did not occur);
 multiple fragmentation and mixing processes;
 various chemical interactions modifying the melt composition
and characteristics while producing hydrogen.
Premixing is then a highly complex phenomenon that could not
be handled at once and needed to be addressed step by step, as a
function of the needs and issues in a risk perspective. The path to
characterize the premixing was then built with the focus of reduc-
ing the margins (conservatism) related with the evaluations of the
explosion loads and has been as follows (Fig. 3).
1. Analysis of the melt dispersion to get the “melt mass in mix-
ture”: melt is flowing into water as jets (with several potential
configurations) and mainly the fragmented and dispersed part
is involved in the explosion.
2. Estimate of the coolant flow configuration and void content:
it is assumed that, in practical situations, void should mitigate
the explosion strength; this is due to the important time (and
energy) necessary to collapse the void, during which the explo-
sion waves can damp; this is particularly true at large (reactor)
scale. Void will also limit the possibility of triggering.
3. Estimate of the melt solidification: solidification prevents fine
fragmentation and thus prevents or limits steam explosion; it
is now considered as decisive for the risk evaluation; this then
strongly depends on corium material properties. Solidification
also allows the constitution of a coolable debris bed.
4. Estimate of the hydrogen production through corium oxida-
tion: hydrogen can potentially add considerable amounts of
(non-condensable) void; only few models are addressing this
point and in a very uncertain way. Hydrogen may also lead to
the constitution of an explosive atmosphere through combus-
tion. Although quite unlikely, partial combustion may also occur
directly during the premixing stage.
Meanwhile, the requirements related to the precision of the
evaluations have evolved and strongly increased, due to the occur-
rence of severe accidents and subsequent needs for adequate
counter measures. Measuring the progress made can be quite easy
but evaluating the progress to be further done is trickier since
the objectives are evolving and improvement is always possible.
Nowadays, following the work done in the OECD SERENA-2 pro-
gram (see e.g. Meignen et al., 2014a,b), it might be estimated that
the models are able to evaluate, within a reasonable uncertainty,
the main trends of available experimental results. Consequently,
reactor applications in conditions similar to the experiments, i.e.
with the same simplifying assumptions, can be estimated to be
captured within a reasonable uncertainty range. In this perspec-
tive, the progress made should be considered as really satisfactory
514 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527

since the risks are now better assessed. Nevertheless, as already Indeed, being able to propose such double approach in the same
mentioned, experiments themselves were performed with simpli- tool is also a particular challenge. It will be important to have this
fying assumptions. The remaining uncertainties are then mostly in mind while reading the rest of the paper, other way the pro-
related to aspects which were not or only weakly addressed. Fur- posal for several models at different levels of complexity for the
ther improvements then require also additional experimental data same phenomenon might be quite confusing, whereas they are
addressing different configurations. complementary.
Melt fragmentation was then historically the first aspect to be
investigated but, despite important progresses and in view of the 3. MC3D’s mathematical model for premixing
above discussion, it still needs further work to address simplifying
assumptions. Indeed, jet fragmentation in isothermal (non-boiling) The computer code MC3D is primarily to be considered as a tool-
situations is already quite poorly understood and modeled, except box allowing the resolution of physical models for multiphase flow
in some very specific configurations widely studied in some indus- problems. The mathematical model is sufficiently robust to cover
tries. The difficulty here is amplified by the fact that the ambient a very large spectrum of physical problems, from flows in geologic
medium configuration and composition is dependent on the frag- media (waste management context, see Berthoud, 2006) to strong
mentation itself (Fig. 2). detonation waves. The code structure is very flexible and coding
Void in premixture can probably be adequately characterized of new models is in general very fast. Developers have therefore
only with the use of CFD models. Its impact on melt fragmenta- mainly to derive physical models, which in the case of FCI, is the
tion (Fig. 2) is still uncertain and numerous models use simplifying core of the problem. For the numerical model of a physical prob-
assumptions (e.g. no impact in the “thin film” model). The eval- lem, the developer has to define mass components which might
uation of the amount of void is obviously difficult due to the be grouped in volume mixtures, i.e. with components having the
very specific conditions out of the scope of the large majority of same volume (e.g. gases), then in momentum mixtures, i.e. with
experimental research. Nevertheless, it is now quite clear that in components having all the same velocity (dynamical equilibrium),
conditions with large melt jet release, this one embedded in a large and then grouped in energy mixtures, i.e. with same temperature
vapor film and thus fragmentation occurs primarily in a gaseous (thermal equilibrium) (Fig. 4).
environment. The simulations also indicate that this vapor film is We use the classical Eulerian “two-phase” method (e.g. Ishii and
not stable but subject to large scale instabilities. Hibili, 2006) where each component/mixture is described by mass,
Solidification is now suspected to be one of the leading effects momentum and energy equations. These balance equations are
in the mitigation of steam explosion with UO2 /ZrO2 melts as com- solved with a semi-implicit method derived from the ICE method
pared to other melt materials (e.g. alumina which was used in some (Harlow and Amsden, 1971). A staggered grid is used (Cartesian or
KROTOS experiments, see Huhtiniemi et al., 2001). This effect has cylindrical) where velocities are expressed at the faces and other
always been accounted for in the MC3D models but it has received variables at the center of meshes.
recently renewed attention, and is now introduced in all available The main variables for resolution in the premixing model are:
(and still developed) models.
Oxidation has also been introduced in the MC3D model since • the volume fractions ˛;
a long time but verification and improvements are limited by the • the mass fractions of the gas components;
small number of experimental data. More, the few experimental • the pressure P (one single pressure);
results are quite confusing from apparent full mitigation of the • the velocities, U, V, W;
explosion to multiplication of loads by several orders of magnitude • the temperatures T.
(Cho et al., 1998). Today, from our point of view, this aspect is the
one on which efforts should be put primarily since it is very likely
The process starts by considering the momentum equation
that in the reactor situation the melt will contain large amount of
which is written with the finite difference method. For a momen-
un-oxidized metals (e.g. vessel failure from the “focusing effect”).
tum mixture m, the balance is written in non-conservative and
The problem is seen to be in itself very challenging. How-
mostly implicit form regarding the velocities and pressures:
ever, it is made even more complex by the fact that the initial
and boundary conditions, i.e. accident scenarios, are themselves −
→n+1 
very uncertain, which obliges to investigate various conditions that Vm −V m
n −
→
• ˛nm m
n
t
+ V m n)
n ∇ (V
m = −˛nm ∇ (P)n+1 +
might be later found unrealistic. The ex-vessel situation in the
PWR/BWR involves: 
nmel
(V lN+1 − V m
n+1/n
˛nm m
ng+ Klm n+1
)+
 likely, non-axisymmetric conditions (side break) i.e. needing in
principle 3D evaluations;
 l=1,l =
/ m


ncons 
ncons
n+1/n  n+1
 potentially, very large breaks (some tens of centimeters); cc (Vl − V m
n+1
) + Tadd
 potentially, pressurized ejection of the melt. c=1,c ∈ l c  =1,c  ∈ m

Before entering into some details of the models in MC3D, it is n+1/n

important to emphasis the requirements of its development:
- being sufficiently user-friendly and robust to be used by non-
experts for reactor applications;
- proposing an adequate frame for research for developing relevant
models and a improving understanding.
This double perspective leads to propose for some complex pro-
cesses as fragmentation and solidification a double approach with
simple parametric models (and recommendations of use) and more
mechanistic models, requiring some expertise for the use.
The Klm s’ are the interfacial friction coefficients between
n+1/n
momentum mixtures l and m. cc represents mass trans-
fers between components. The superscript n + 1/n expresses the
fact that frictions and heat transfers are computed in a mixed
implicit/explicit way. As an example, the heat transfers are
expressed in the form hn An+1 Tn+1 where h is a heat transfer coef-
ficient and A the interfacial area. Tadd represents additional terms
that will not be detailed here because not compulsory. These are the
added mass, lift, turbulent dispersion, additional momentum due to
fragmentation processes, frictions on structures and viscous term.
The set of momentum equations can be formally solved to obtain
 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527 515

Fig. 4. Generic arrangement of grouping and relations between component in MC3D framework.

expressions for each component Un+1 , Vn+1 , Wn+1 of the velocities

as functions of the pressures in neighboring cells. The Un+1 , Vn+1
and Wn+1 expressions are then introduced in the mass and energy
equations which are expressed with finite volume method as:

(˛n+1 n+1 n n  
ncons
• v v −˛v v ) + ˜ nv 
˛ ˜ vn ·
Sf n+1
· Vm =
n+1/n
cc
dt ˝
faces c,c 
(˛n+1 en+1 een+1 −˛n n n  Sf
• e e ee ) n+1
e
dt
+ ˜ ne 
˛ ˜ en ẽen · ˝
· Vm + Fig. 5. The two configurations for describing the melt and transfers between both
fields.
⎡ faces ⎤
˛n+1
  
nc
• one describing a continuous configuration, e.g. jets, pools or liquid
P n+1 ⎣ n+1 ⎦
−˛n S n+1/n
e e
+ ˜ ne . ˝f .Vm
˛ = ˚n+1/n + cc Hc +
dt films, which is called the JET field;
faces c,c  • one describing the drops, supposed to be in a discrete state.
Tadd
Both fields are interconnected though the fragmentation of the
In these equations, the subscripts v and e represents the con- JET field and the coalescence of the DROPS.
sidered volume and energy mixtures, the tilde (e.g. ˛) ˜ stands for The JET field is modeled with a VoF-PLIC (volume of fluid, Piece-
“convected” quantities at the faces (e.g. quantity in upwind cell for wise linear interface construction) that allows a precise description
O(1) convection scheme),  represents the mass transfers,  the of the flow convection with negligible numerical diffusion. The
heat fluxes and H the enthalpy of donor phase. Sf is the area of method is well-known and we will here give only the major lines of
the faces and  is the volume of the cell. Heat fluxes are under modeling. The interface is supposed to be approximated locally by a
the general form (except for radiation), ˚ = hn An+1 Tn+1 , with h straight line (or plan in 3D). Thus the melt is precisely localized into
the heat transfer coefficient, written explicitly, A the interfacial the cell. The orientation of the interface is obtained by inspection
area between two fluids and T the temperature difference, both of the surrounding cells and assuming the functional form:
expressed implicitly. In the energy equation, Tadd stands for vari- 
˛j = ai xi + c
ous additional terms that cannot be detailed here as conduction,
i
chemical energy, volumetric power sources. The kinetic energy is
neglected. where ˛j is the continuous fuel volume fraction. The ai = ∂˛j /∂xi are
The numerical resolution method is shortly described in the the coordinates of the normal vector, and are calculated by a least
appendix. It consists in rearranging the balance equations in order square method. The interface is then placed according to the real
to obtain a matrix containing only the pressure. This matrix is volume of the JET in the cell. In principle, the factor c should give
solved and other variables are deduced. To do so, the momentum the position of the interface but this is not sufficiently precise.
equations are treated separately from the mass and energy balances The convection scheme is depicted in Fig. 6 for the simple case
in order to express the velocities as functions of local surrounding of two fluids (jet and gas) and 2D configuration. The convected vol-
pressures. Then, these expressions for the velocities are introduced umes of each fluid during the time step at a face are pictured with
in the mass and energy equations so that they are only functions of dashed surfaces, the height being the product between velocity and
the pressure, volume fractions and temperatures. These balances time step and the base being the common surface between the jet
are solved with an iterative Newton–Raphson procedure. and the cell face. A similar method has been sought for the 3D cylin-
drical case with interfaces with conical forms but the complexity
of modeling has been found too high to be incorporated in the code
4. Constituents and flow configuration with sufficient confidence on robustness. Thus, for 3D cases, the
model is available only in Cartesian geometry. The model is nev-
In the PREMIXING model of MC3D, the melt is described with 2 ertheless partly available in cylindrical 3D calculation for the R–Z
different fields (Fig. 5): directions. The direction is described with a simple 2nd order
516 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527
Fig. 6. Principles of the VOF-PLIC convection scheme for a JET-gas configuration. Vj :
jet velocity through the lower face, Vg : gas velocity, dt: time step.
Fig. 7. Flow chart in MC3D, blue = water, white = gases, orange = fuel drops. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)
convection model. Thus, the model can be used for cylindrical 3D
calculations provided that the flow in the direction is negligible
or slow.
The second numerical field to describe the melt is related to the
droplets. In the FCI problem, this field is in fact the most important
since most of the heat is transferred by the droplets. For a better
precision, an original second order convection model was devel-
oped (according to the general mathematical model of MC3D, see
Meignen, 2005). The drop surface is evaluated through a classical
interfacial area transport equation. In principle, the drop diameter
used in MC3D is then a mean Sauter diameter. It can be noticed that,
mainly for the sake of a better description of melt solidification,
the model is currently under improvement so that an undefined
number of drop fields will be available. This will be discussed later.
The other numerical fields are:
- the liquid (water or sodium);
- the corresponding vapor;
- as many non-condensables as necessary.3
They altogether form what we will call the coolant. The coolant
flow is described with 2 phases (liquid and gas) thus we need to pre-
scribe a flow map covering the two possible configurations (Fig. 7):
liquid droplets in continuous gas;
bubbles in continuous liquid.
This is a major difficulty in multiphase flow modeling. The issue
is of particular importance since void strongly affects the premixing
itself and the steam explosion loads.
In MC3D, a specific attention is paid regarding the vapor film
that surrounds the melt drops and the jet. The fraction of the gas
that is estimated to be under film configuration, ˛film is evaluated
3
In the following, we will avoid for simplification the description of role non-
condensable gases.
from an estimation of the film thickness, itself deduced from the
film boiling heat transfer as:
hfilm
e=
kfilm
The film void fraction is transported with the drops. The purpose
of this specificity will be addressed further when looking at heat
and mass transfers.
The nature of the continuous phase (liquid or gas) depends on
the relative void fraction defined by:
˛g − ˛film
˛g,rel =
˛l + ˛g − ˛film
The film fraction is then subtracted for in the evaluation of the
configuration.
• If this relative void fraction is less than the limit, ˛B , it is assumed
that the liquid is continuous and the gas is dispersed as bubbles.
• If the void fraction is greater than another limit, ˛D , it is assumed
that the continuous phase is the gas and that the liquid is the
dispersed phase (droplets).
• Between these two limits, the continuous liquid and gas phases
coexist and share the mesh volume. In each phase, the relative
fraction of the dispersed phase in the continuous phase is equal
to the limit value, i.e.:
o relative void fraction in bubbly region = ˛B ;
o relative droplets fraction in gas region = 1 − ˛D .
The default values of the limits used in the explosion module
are ˛B = 0.3 and ˛D = 0.7.
The corium drops are placed in the water and the gas propor-
tionally to the volume fraction of each zone. This choice is clearly
arbitrary and is qualitatively justified as follows. For a classical
isothermal flow, the particles, particularly the small ones, should
be more likely in contact with the liquid since the frictions are
far more important with it. However, the particles are very hot
in our problem so they are also the source of vaporization and
void, and then they should also be as well in the gas field. On the
overall, it is then impossible to state with precision how they are
distributed within a mesh. Of course, once they are cold, the par-
ticle could be placed in the liquid but they also do not play any
role in the explosion so the error has no impact. It should be noted
that the impact of such arbitrariness diminishes as the mesh is finer
and the transition configuration is in fact found most of the time
at the separation of water-rich regions and gas-rich regions. All
models devoted to FCI make use of similar assumptions and it is
unclear if this quite parametric and arbitrary description is suffi-
cient. To answer to this question, more complex models in MC3D
are currently under consideration, starting from the introduction of
interfacial area transport equations for the bubbles and the drops.
The flow configuration is important since all constitutive laws
are written in relation with it. In all cases, we consider a mixture of
flow with a variable part of liquid-continuous and gas-continuous
configurations. The generic way to compute the overall effect is
simply to add the contribution of each of these configurations in
the mesh.
5. Major constitutive laws
Thanks to a versatile coding and complex flow description,
MC3D is in principle able to handle a wide range of configurations
with fully asymmetric reactor configuration. However, the major
problems in FCI come from the quite limited knowledge of the con-
stitutive physical laws to incorporate to close the model. Here, we
 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527
Fig. 8. Example of visualizations of experiments of instability and fragmentation of water jet in air (left, reproduction from Marmottant and Villermaux, 2004) and mercury
jet in water (right, reproduction from Hall and Fletcher, 1995).
will restrict our attention to those that are particularly important
and challenging:
- the melt fragmentation, which is the core of the problem;
- the heat transfer from the melt to coolant and subsequent void
(gas) production.
The crucial problems of solidification and oxidation will be
addressed in specific sections.
5.1. The jet fragmentation
The melt fragmentation process is of utmost importance since
it leads to an increase of interfacial area and drives all the subse-
quent events. Fragmentation controls both the void production and
the melt solidification which are the two major limiting effects of
the explosion triggering and strength. Fragmentation has been a
topic of active research for some years leading to clear progress
in understanding and modeling. With the development of visual-
ization techniques in experiments, one can get a more and more
clear picture of the overall process, in particular for drop fragmen-
tation (see e.g. the recent series of papers from Theofanous and
Li, 2008; Theofanous et al., 2012, 2013). Nevertheless, despite con-
tinuous progresses, melt fragmentation is still to be considered as
a point necessitating further efforts for modeling and verification.
This is obviously due to the high complexity of the phenomenon,
involving several scales and mechanisms (both tangential stripping
and Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities are involved) as can be seen from
pictures of jet dispersion in air and in water in Fig. 8.
Describing in detail such complexity is out of reach with FCI
codes and simplifications are necessary for constitutive models. To
do so, it is first important to determine the actual scales of fragmen-
tation. It is usual to separate fragmentation into a primary process
leading to the detachment of drops and a secondary one considering
517
Fig. 9. Comparison of experimental breakup lengths (corium jets in water) with
the Meignen-CONST correlation and the Epstein correlation (Epstein and Fauske,
2001). Dark blue symbols are for sub-cooled water tests, light blue symbols are for
saturated water tests. Error bars were given only for CCM tests. L28 data is subject to
interpretation. KROTOS: Huhtiniemi et al. (2001), CCM: Spencer et al. (1994), FARO:
Magallon and Huhtiniemi (2001). (For interpretation of the references to color in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
applications where the jet does not deviate too much from verti-
cality and where general ambient conditions are not too far from
those in the experiments used for the validation. In such conditions,
the jet velocity is sufficiently low that the melt dispersion can be
considered as driven by the buoyancy force exerted on the film by
the surrounding water. As long as the jet velocity is small compared
to the gas one, the fragmentation rate is only slowly dependent on
the height of the mixture. Then, at first order, considering constant
coolant properties and melt temperature, the breakup length can
be approximated as a linear function of the jet velocity. The com-
parison of the deduced dimensionless breakup lengths (length of
compact jet divided by diameter) with some experimental data for
corium jets is given in Fig. 9. For large corium jets in water, the orig-
inal model led to approximate the breakup length with very simple
further fragmentation of the drops themselves. However, this dis- law: 
tinction might better in general be considered as a practical way to L/D = Vj /Ve where Ve is an erosion velocity of value
simplify modeling. The current models in FCI codes4 consider in fact const
Ve = 1/5.5 m/s.
that the process occurs in one step, without considering secondary
In Fig. 9 is also shown the Epstein correlation (Epstein and
fragmentation. As we will see, this hypothesis is seriously limiting
Fauske, 2001) which can be obtained straightforwardly using the
and we are seeking for models combining primary and secondary
Kelvin–Helmholtz instability model (see further) or with simple
fragmentation.
turbulence arguments, known to be quite accurate for liquid/liquid
The very first model of MC3D for primary fragmentation (CONST
systems.
model) makes use of a correlation established by Meignen and


Berthoud (1997) from a theoretical work making the hypothesis L j
of a thick vapor film surrounding the jet. It is still used for practical 
D Epstein
= CE
a

In the above Epstein correlation, subscript j stands for the jet,

4
Those considering a melt jet, see Meignen (2005). and a is for the ambient fluid. CE is a dimensionless coefficient
518 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527

a local model (KHF Kelvin–Helmholtz-Fragmentation model) is

implemented using local properties of the flow. The reasonable
applicability of the Kelvin–Helmholtz model, yielding the Epstein
correlation, gives a path for this task, while providing a sufficiently
simple and tractable base model. The implementation is an exten-
sion to multiphase flows of the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability model.
In this model, we write that the volumetric rate of fragmentation
of the jet is given by:
f = Nf ci , where
 

ci = 1
(j +a )
j a (Vj − Va ) −
k(j + a )
2
ci is the character-
k=kmax
istic velocity of instability of the KH model. Nf is called the
Fig. 10. Comparison of mean Sauter diameter from various experiments with fragmentation parameter which should depend on the fragmen-
corium melts (UO2 /ZrO2 ). Dark blue symbols are for subcooled water tests, light tation process and should then be considered as a constant to be
blue symbols are for saturated water tests. For the TROI tests, the velocity is esti-
mated roughly as 7 m/s. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
adjusted.
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) In a fully local model, the problem is to provide:

CE ≈ 7.5 ± 2.5. This correlation is based on the assumption that the - an adequate spatial averaging of the properties;
fragmentation rate is proportional to the jet velocity and then the - an averaging of the fluid properties.
breakup length becomes independent of it. This assumption comes
from the Kelvin–Helmholtz model when the vapor film is not taken Since it is believed that the jet rate of distortion and fragmen-
into consideration (thin film assumption). There is obviously a large tation is dictated by large-scale effects, we need an averaging and
uncertainty but the Epstein correlation does not seem to be applica- filtering process over a given distance R. Furthermore, this will limit
ble for corium jets in water. Originally, the Meignen (CONST model the effect of mesh size. For a given property V, the averaging is done
in MC3D) correlation was adjusted to fit the FARO L11 and L14 data as:
(Magallon and Huhtiniemi, 2001), the only ones available at that 
time, which are at saturated conditions, thus with large films sur- (x − y)˛(y)Vdy
rounding the jet. A saturated CCM test is seen to be largely out of V (x) = 
(x − y)˛(y)dy
the linear tendency. It was suspected to be due to large scale distur-
bances originating from the injection system. Indeed, several tests

have shown a very fast apparent breakup when the jet is already 1 if ||x − y|| < R
turbulent before penetrating the water. The correlation is seen to (x − y) =
0 else
be also quite consistent with sub-cooled data, although a better
specific adjustment can be found. Since, the mixing zone width is of the order of the jet radius, we
If the fragmentation rate can be approached with relatively use it as the characteristic length R. Then, since the KHF model uses
simple arguments, much more difficulty regards the size of the one simple ambient fluid, we need to provide an averaging process
drops. Indeed, the size seems to be dependent on very complex to define this ambient fluid. There are several possibilities to take
processes which are not yet fully understood. Fig. 10 provides the into account the multiphase environment. In the MC3D model, it
mean Sauter diameter obtained from the sieving of the debris in is chosen to consider a “mixed” fluid with averaged properties. To
various tests with corium melts. The injection velocity in the exper- define them, again, several ways are again possible. We use the
iments is in general quite uncertain. However, these uncertainties property of the Kelvin–Helmholtz model that the leading term of
cannot explain the large scatter of the experimental data. It will the instability is the kinetic energy V2 . Denoting spatial averages
be remarked that the experiments involving quite large melt jets with a bar, we get for the ambient fluid:
(5 cm) in large water pool (∼70 cm) tend to give particles with

diameters in between 1.5 and 3 mm. In contrast, there is a group of 2 2
experimental results with small particles, between 0.4 and 1 mm, ˛g g + ˛l l ˛g g (Vg ) + ˛l l (Vl )
a = , Va = + Vj
which were all obtained for experiments with smaller jets (2 cm) in ˛g + ˛l ˛g g + ˛l l
narrower water pools (20 cm). Such difference due to the geometry
was discussed, in particular in the frame of the SERENA-2 project, where Vg = Vg − Vj and Vl = Vl − Vj .
but could not find any explanation up to now. The standard CONST A first validation and calibration of the model is obtained by
model in MC3D does not provide a law for the drop size and it is comparison with data from experiments with low melting point
up to the user to fix it. It is recommended to choose a value slightly melts (e.g. Wood’s metal) which can be considered as isothermal,
above the requested Sauter diameter in order to better take into i.e. without boiling. The solidification is also expected to have a
account the thermal aspects attached to a real population of drops: weak impact.
the smaller drops are cooled earlier and then have a lower weight The drop diameter is computed from the wavelength of the KH
for the global energy transfers. Based on the experimental results, instability model, as being proportional of the most unstable wave
a value of 3 mm5 is then recommended as being a reasonable con- .
servative choice regarding the explosion (the large drops solidify
less rapidly and produce less void). Dd = Nd 
This situation is expected to yield sufficiently conservative
results in the common situations with vertical central jets. How- The corresponding wavenumber is given by
ever, there is certainly a need for a more elaborate model. In MC3D, 2
2 (Vj − Va ) j a
kmax =
3
j + a
5
Latest IRSN reactor applications use in fact 2.5 mm.
 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527 519

Fig. 12. Comparison of the evaluation of the breakup lengths of low melting point
melt jet dispersion in water with computations with MC3D. sNd =
Nd . See also
legend of Fig. 11. Data: same as Fig. 11 except KTH (Haraldsson, 2000): Cerrobend-70,
d = 25 mm;
Fig. 11. Comparison of the evaluation of drop size from simulations of low melt-
ing point melt jet dispersion in water. sNd =
Nd . IKE (Cho et al., 1991): Wood’s
metal, d = 4 mm; Matsuo (Matsuo et al., 2008): U-Alloy 78, d = 7, 10, 15, 20 mm; of the actual values of this crucial property. Thus, for the evalu-
KMU (Bang et al., 2003): Wood’s metal, d = 10, 20 mm, ANL (Spencer et al., 1986): ations, the actual parameter to take into account is
Nd . For the
Wood’s metal, d = 22 mm. ISPRA (see Bürger et al., 1995): Wood’s metal, d = 28 mm.
computation, we impose a surface tension of 1 N/m, likely to be
MC3D calculation, density = 9000 kg/m3 , surface tension = 1 m/s.
representative.
The jet diameters in the experiments were ranging from 4 to
A rational of the model can be obtained if we simplify a bit the
50 mm. The model should be in principle less accurate at small jet
equations with the assumption a « j which is correct for most of
 diameter, i.e. not far larger than the drop size. The reported exper-
our applications. Denoting, ˇ = a /j we have then imental diameters are the median values of size distribution. All in

all, a very large scatter is observed in the experimental data, nearly

kmax
ci = ˇ(Vj − Va )2 − one order of magnitude. The uncertainty on surface tension can-
j not explain such large discrepancy and further efforts are clearly
needed in this direction. The jet size and duration of the injection
It is then worth to notice that the velocity can be further approx-
should also influence the results as they influence the entrainment
imated for most of the wave numbers to
 of the water along the jet. The situation is nevertheless quite confus-
ci = ˇ(Vj − Va ) ing and for the comparison, we choose to compute a representative
 situation, without trying to reproduce a specific experiment. Apply-
Then the fragmentation rate is f = Nf ˇ(Vj − Va ) and, as ing the model with a value
Nd = 2 leads, as shown in Fig. 11, to a
L/D = (Vj − Va )/2 f , we recover the Epstein correlation by identi- rather satisfactory result. Tendency curves of the form d = a·vb , are
fying Nf with 1/CE . A typical value close to 0.12 is then expected for also shown for the calculation results. The dependency with the
Nf . velocity is approximately at the power b = 4/3. A parameter
Nd = 2
The surface tension acts as a low-pass cut-off regarding the wave is also correct to conform to FARO results, if we use a surface ten-
number, this cut-off being close to the maximum in fact and then, sion of about 0.5 N/m. Nevertheless, results with
Nd = 4 are also
ˇ(Vj − Va )2 ≈ (kmax /a )
. With Dd = Nd max we are then led to the shown to check for the sensitivity. On the average, the ratio of the
following expression: obtained diameter for the two cases is not 2 as expected, but 1.5. It
is likely to be due to a stronger entrainment of the water with the
a (Vj − Va )2 Dd
≈ 2
Nd drops when they are smaller, which reduces the velocity difference,

and thus increases the drop size.
which is in fact nothing else than the classical Weber criterion for In order to conform to the Epstein correlation, the fragmenta-
drop stability. This criterion is also often used to characterize the tion parameter Nf should be of the order of 0.12. The Epstein model
mean drop size in a mixture. From this expression, a typical value does not take into account the jet acceleration which in the case
of 2 for Nd can be expected if the critical Weber number is taken as of metals (or corium) is important. In fact, taking this effect into
12. Inversely, a typical value of 0.5 for Nd (half a wavelength) would account leads to a non-constant breakup length, tending to zero
yield an equivalent Weber number of about 3. at zero velocity. This is shown in Fig. 12, together with exper-
We firstly check the consistency with experimental data in imental results and evaluations with MC3D. The theoretical KH
quasi-isothermal conditions or with low boiling conditions. It is model results are shown with two values of Nf . The breakup lengths
noticed that, as the drop size is estimated from the debris, solidifi- are also in reasonable agreement with the experimental data and
cation occurs during the flow. Here, the impact of the solidification follow the trends expected from the model, i.e. an augmentation
on the final size is not known and it is postulated that it is small. with the velocity due to an effect of the acceleration of the jet. The
The result of the computation of the mean drop size compared to lengths with suggested value Nf = 0.15 are in the upper range of the
the available experimental data is shown in Fig. 11. In these exper- experimental values and a value of 0.2 should be more accurate
iments, several low melting point metals are used (Wood’s metal, for these particular tests. It is noticed that at high velocity, the jet
Cerrobend-70, U-alloy 78 . . .) and, unfortunately, the surface ten- becomes quite unstable and the breakup length oscillates around
sion seems to be very uncertain for most of them. The value for an average value given in the graph. The breakup length seems nev-
the Wood’s metal ranges from 0.38 N/m (Narayanan et al., 2006) to ertheless to become more or less constant, in agreement with the
“∼1” in Bang et al. (2003). Note that the same uncertainty exists for Epstein model.
corium melts. As the drop size should be (according to the model), Also in Fig. 12 is shown the result of the Saito correlation, which
in the absence of solidification effect, proportional to the surface is often used to characterize the breakup length (e.g. in JASMINE
tension, it is clear that there is a need for the proper determination code).
520 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527
L j V
= 2.1 j
D l gDj
However, this correlation is difficult to interpret since it only
reflects a simple balance between dynamical forces and volumet-
ric forces. The jet would then be fragmented when it is driven by
volumetric forces. Indeed, as the breakup length is often obtained
from the variation of the velocity of melt penetration in water, it
is not clear whether the change of melt penetration velocity is due
to total fragmentation or due to the equilibrium with gravitational
forces.
5.2. Perspective
The KHF model suffers from several difficulties that we are
aiming to overcome. First, the whole process of fragmentation is
embedded in one single step. However, it seems now quite clear
that the dispersion rate and the final size of the drops do not origi-
nate from the same mechanisms. From our point of view, dispersion
and fragmentation occurs from large-scale effects. These lead to
the large-scale destabilization visible in most of the experiments
(e.g. Fig. 8). But the drop size itself, found to be largely smaller
than the size of the largest deformations, is likely to be affected by
small scale fluctuations, i.e. very local effects. It seems then that we
should dissociate the fragmentation rate, which can be associated
to a dispersion rate, and the final size of the drops.
Also, the importance of describing the drop population more
accurately, i.e. taking into account of the large spectrum of size,
in order to capture more easily the solidification characteristics,
was recognized in the SERENA-2 project and models have been
introduced in JEMI and JASMINE codes (Lagrangian approaches).
To do so in MC3D, a multi-field Eulerian description (MUSIG) was
developed in the code. In this method, the particles are distributed
in several classes with fixed particle size. Each class evolves as the
drop field in the standard description except that:
- all classes have the same velocity (homogenous MUSIG descrip-
tion);
- the energy balance is evaluated explicitly.
A first step was then to impose a spectrum shape, e.g. log-normal
or gamma distribution, while keeping the current models. As these
distributions need two parameters, one needs to fix an additional
parameter. This was done by imposing a ratio between the mass
median diameter and the mean Sauter diameter (1.4 seems a good
compromise). Such method was also chosen for the recent devel-
opments of the JEMI code.
We are however also currently seeking for an alternative and
improvement where the distribution would be directly evaluated.
This can be done through the use of a secondary fragmentation
mechanism. It is recalled that it is believed that the drop size is
affected by local characteristics whereas the jet fragmentation itself
is affected by more global characteristics thus with large scales
(the jet scale). With this description, we are able to disconnect the
primary fragmentation rate from the final drop size. In the model
under development (Castrillon Escobar et al., 2013), it is considered
that the large scale deformation is equivalent to a primary fragmen-
tation, still calculated with previous methods, but imposing large
initial deformation (Fig. 13). The resulting large drops (or deforma-
tion) are then subject to finer fragmentation until a criterion for
stability is reached.
Fragmentation of the drops is computed with the rather classical
Ranger and Nicholls time scale, which leads to the following mass

1 ˛d Vda √ 1 Vda a
transfer rate:frag = t ∗ d a = ˛d d t ∗ 
frag
Dd
frag
Dd d produces its own size spectrum.
Fig. 13. Principles of the new secondary fragmentation description under develop-
ment in MC3D. Starting from a large drop in class 10, fragmentation process leads
to small fragments distributed in classes with small diameters (red arrows). The
fragmentation also leads to a diminution of the mother drop size which is achieved
by transferring a small amount of particle for class 10 to class 9 (blue arrow). (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)
∗
tfrag is chosen between 0.5 and 1. The diameter of
the fragmented drops is obtained through a Weber
Wech
criterion:ddaughter = 2 which can be obtained easily also
c (Vda )
from the Kelvin–Helmholtz theory is a characteristic Weber num-
ber. In principle, the energy criterion of Weber should impose a
characteristic value below 12. However, the fragment production is
a complex process and the fluid might be locally entrained before
being fragmented, which will result in a higher characteristic
Weber number.
However, it is to be noticed that, for the model to give reasonable
agreement with experiments, it is necessary to jump to a hetero-
geneous MUSIG description with several velocity fields. This is due
to strong entrainment of the smallest fragments which leads to a
premature stop of the fragmentation process with one single veloc-
ity field. After some tests, it comes that a reasonable agreement is
obtained with 3 associated velocity fields: one for the very large
drops, one for the medium-size drops, one for the smallest frag-
ments. Currently, the smallest are in fact placed in the same velocity
field as the water, i.e. they are in hydrodynamical equilibrium with
water.
Note that, in the considered conditions with fully liquid drops,
the viscosity is too low to have an impact (the Ohnesorge number
is very small). However, in case of partial solidification, an effective
viscosity might be considered, leading to a different criterion. It is
also noticed that, for an accurate computing, one needs accurate
frictions since fragmentation is partly stopped due to entrainment
of the drops with water. It is not possible to discuss this aspect in
detail in the present article. It is nevertheless important to highlight
the quite large uncertainty on this issue when the drops are deform-
ing and fragmenting. With the development of high precision CFD
calculations, this issue has received some attention recently (see
e.g. Kahre and Yang, 2013) and some efforts might have to be under-
taken in this area for the computation of FCI. Also, currently, each
fragmentation step is viewed as producing daughter drops with a
single size, whereas it is likely that each individual process actually
 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527
5.3. Heat and coolant mass transfers
Due to the large number of constituents and possible flow
configurations, it is not possible here to describe all heat and
mass transfer processes and we will restrict to the most spe-
cific and important one, i.e. the film boiling configuration. It is
indeed easy to verify that, despite the high melt temperatures
considered here, radiation is dominant only when the melt is
in a gaseous environment. This is accentuated by the fact that
the melt surface temperature rapidly decreases. Nevertheless, in
general, and particularly in reactor situations, the melt spends
an important time in the vapor produced by the vaporization
of the water and then radiation is an important heat transfer
mode.
Film boiling has been and is still a topic of intensive research.
Several models and correlations have been proposed, all with limi-
tations. MC3D proposes several correlations but the default one is a
composition of the forced convection film boiling from Epstein and
Hauser correlation (1980), slightly modified, and a pool film boiling
correlation from Sakurai et al. (1990). However, the correlation is
also quite complex and is not detailed here. In most of the cases,
the regime is forced convection and we will focus on it.
There have been a number of debates on the problem of film
boiling and the accuracy of the existing correlations. The choice
made for MC3D was dictated by the fact that the correlation of
Epstein–Hauser was obtained from an analytical model and is more
easily tractable and understandable. However, results are similar to
those with the Liu and Theofanous correlation (1996, also available
in MC3D).
The Epstein–Hauser model makes the hypothesis of a constant
film thickness at the front of the ball/drop and is in principle limited
regarding the thickness of the film that might appear in specific
situations with low velocity and low subcooling. The analysis con-
ducted by Epstein and Hauser yields a complex relation that has no
explicit solution: only an iterative procedure can give the result. To
overcome the difficulty, they proposed a correlation with a combi-
nation of the results for the two extreme cases of high subcooling
(thin film) and saturated cases (thick film). Epstein and Hauser
paper does not give information of the accuracy of the procedure
but it is easy to verify that the error is bounded within 20% for
the cases of interest here. The modified Epstein–Hauser correlation
used in MC3D reads:
ϕEH, mod = hEH, mod (Td − Tsat ), hEH, mod =
      
2 B 4 1/4
521
n
2,5 TREPAM
Inoue
2
h_mod / h_exp
1,5
1
0,5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Subcooling (K)
Fig. 14. Ratio between the computed heat transfers (h mod) and those measured
(h exp) in the TREPAM experiments (Berthoud and D’Aillon, 2009, including those
at pressures up to 240 bars) and in the experiments from Inoue et al. (1997). It
is noticed that in the case of filaments, the Epstein–Hauser model provides the
necessary corrections to the case with spheres.
In such conditions, film boiling heat transfer is weakly depend-
ent on the melt temperature.
It will be noticed that the recent TREPAM experiments
(Berthoud and D’Aillon, 2009) have confirmed, for the case of
small filaments (lower than 0.5 mm) the accuracy of the model,
and then the accuracy of the Epstein–Hauser correlation for high
temperatures (up to 3000 K), high pressures (up to 22 Mpa) and
high velocities (up to 40 m/s). Fig. 14 shows a comparison with
the calculated and the measured heat transfer coefficients. Also
are included in this figure the comparison with the data from
Inoue et al. (1997). The level of accuracy is the same as those in
previous experiments and is also comparable to the experimental
uncertainty (the scatter of data for similar conditions yields an
uncertainty of a factor of 2 in TREPAM). It is remarkable to note
that, even at pressure slightly beyond the critical pressures (strong
subcooling), the model is still sufficiently accurate regarding
all general uncertainties in the FCI problem (the melt is not a
composition of solid spheres (or filaments)).
Interestingly, it is noticed that, despite the fact that both factors
in the brackets can strongly differ, the influence of the sub-cooling is
finally rather mild. At one bar, the difference between saturated and
strongly sub-cooled cases is about 25% so that, as a first approxima-
tion, the simplified case of strong sub-cooling Nusub may be used.
However, in a global FCI situation, more vapor is produced with
Cc 3 g Re1/2 1
+
2 saturated conditions so that, all in all, the cooling is much more
2 D ˇ 24ACc 4 A
Cpg ·(Td −Ts ) ˇ.l ·Cpg ·(Ts −Tl )
 effective in sub-cooled conditions.
A = Pr ·(h −h ) , B =  ·Pr ·(h −h ) . Prl , ˇ = Then, into our point of view, the film boiling heat transfer is not
g vsat g g v,sat
  1/2
lsat l,sat
to be considered as an important challenge and we estimate that
g 1/2 g
l  , Cc = 2 researches on this issue are of low priority for the FCI problem. More
In the above correlation,  stands for the thermal conductiv-
ity,  for the density,  for the kinematic viscosity, Cp for the heat
capacity, h for the enthalpy, Re and Pr for respectively Reynolds and
Prandtl numbers, the subscript g refers to the gas, d to the drop and
l to the liquid.
The first term in the bracket gives the heat transfer close to
saturation, whereas the second term corresponds to the strongly
sub-cooled cases. Compared to the original correlation, the fitting
factor Cc has also been introduced in the first term in bracket. How-
ever, considering the general uncertainties (see discussion below),
this modification is not decisive.
It can be easily verified that, when the second term in the bracket
is dominant, i.e. at sub-cooling larger than about 50 K, the model is
reduced to a heat transfer correlation around a sphere at saturation
temperature in water:
ϕEH, highsub ∝ Re1/2 Pr 1/2 (Tsat − Tl )
problematic is in fact the result of the heat transfer: part of the heat
goes directly to the water and part goes to evaporation to produce
void (that might further re-condense). In fact, in steady conditions,
it can be considered that all the heat goes into water since a steady
void volume is formed (film and gas pocket in the rear). The film
boiling models cannot yield an answer to the problem of the volume
of vapor formed on the rear of the drop since the heat transfer
occurs for most at the front. It is foreseen to handle this difficulty in
the near future and currently a simple parametric approach is used
where the heat flux leaving the drop and going to water is adjusted
in order to have the following situations:
- in saturated cases: all the heat is used for vaporization; vapor
might further condense;
- in sub-cooled cases, if DT > 10 K, all the heat goes to water, pro-
vided that a minimum vapor fraction exists. This minimum is
given by the film thickness from the film boiling model;
- linear interpolation in between.
522 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527
Fig. 15. Temperature profiles used in the crust model in MC3D.
This model avoids the complication of modeling the heat flux
from the interface to water. Nevertheless, the arbitrariness of the
model is not fully satisfactory and experimental investigations are
needed to improve/justify/validate the models (unfortunately, pre-
vious experimental literature does not report information about
this).
6. The issue of melt solidification
Melt solidification is now an essential issue of the ex-vessel FCI
problem as it is now recognized to be an essential mechanism for
the reduction of the loads from a steam explosion. Disregarding this
effect, in a conservative approach cannot ensure that loads will be
below the strength capacity of the structures in the ex-vessel sit-
uation. It is noticed that this effect might not be so important in
an in-vessel situation and a conservative approach without solid-
ification effects might be sufficient in this case in a risk analysis
perspective (to be confirmed).
The modeling of the impact of solidification is an issue due to:
- the very small scale at which it operates,
- the fact that solidification grows in a moving fluid, concurrently
with fragmentation,
- the strong influence with the melt particle size,
- the lack of precise experimental data.
The standard approach in MC3D, to be used preferentially in
reactor applications, is simply to compare the drop temperature
(energy) to a given criterion which is simply a temperature thresh-
old. Below this criterion, the fragmentation does not occur. There
is no specific hypothesis on the physics of solidification with this
parametric approach (as far as the criterion is physically consis-
tent). In order to improve the situation, crust models have been
introduced recently in MC3D and other FCI codes as JEMI and
TEXAS. These models make the hypothesis that, once created, the
drops are freezing homogenously from their surface. The reality is
likely to be more complex but it might be difficult to catch. MC3D’s
model is explained with some details in Uršič et al. (2011) so only
hints will be given here. The drop model is depicted in Fig. 15. It
is a 3-layer model, one of which is the crust. In each layer, the
temperature profile is specified: linear in the crust, quadratic in
the “boundary” layer, flat in the core. As for the current existing
models in other FCI codes, the crust interior surface is supposed to
be at solidification temperature, meaning that, at that level, the
model cannot handle the cases with large solidification interval
temperatures (non eutectic cases) since a “mushy” layer should in
principle be added. As the modeling in MC3D is purely Eulerian,
the characteristics of the solidification have to be transported. The
first transported quantity is ı3s (ıs is the crust thickness) in order to
preserve the crust stiffness Cs = (1/12)(Eı3s /1 − 2 ) (E is the Young
modulus and  is the Poisson coefficient). The second transported
Fig. 16. Relative crust thickness corresponding to the equivalent criterion for solid-
ification during a steam explosion with the standard model (drop energy = solidus
energy), function of the drop size, the heat transfer h, and the drop initial overheat
DTs.
quantity is equivalent to the crust energy. With the standard over-
all drop energy and interface area, it is possible to reconstruct the
drop interior temperature profile and obtain the crust thickness as
well as the surface temperature.
It is interesting to compare the behavior of both models. Fig. 16
gives, for given heat transfer rates and melt overheats, the relative
crust thickness (ıs /R) corresponding to the criterion for solidifica-
tion with the standard model (drop energy = solidus energy). On the
mean, the solidification criterion of the standard model is equiva-
lent to a rather large relative crust thickness, of the order of 0.3.
However, the mean Sauter drop size used in MC3D represents
in fact a full spectrum of sizes and it does not correspond to a
representative drop regarding solidification (it is more represen-
tative regarding heat transfers and frictions). It is also seen that
the criterion is weakly but noticeably changing with the drop size.
Nevertheless, the variations of the equivalent thickness are found
quite small regarding the various uncertainties and crudeness of
the models. Then, a strong qualitative difference in behavior with
the crust model, compared to the standard one, is not expected.
Thus, as the model is quite complex, users with no expertise might
still use the standard model at the moment.
Despite being more mechanistic, the crust models face also
numerous difficulties that have been discussed during the SERENA-
2 program. The most important one is the evaluation of the strength
of the crust. Currently, all the models (e.g. Bürger et al., 1986,
Yang and Bankoff, 1987) are mostly based on the Epstein (1977)
theory of the thin shell stability under a shear (an extension of
the Kelvin–Helmholtz theory). The model makes the hypothesis
of an elastic shell with constant Young modulus whereas it is quite
unlikely that such hot crusts have an elastic behavior. As the data
are scarce and difficult to interpret, we are then led to consider,
here also, an empirical criterion for solidification (Uršič et al., 2011).
Thus, there is largely room for improvements of the situation and
alternative methods may be researched. One feasible way should
be, at relatively short term, to make use of CFD simulations for both
the crust growth and the mechanical behavior.
Finally, back to the material effects, although it might be con-
sidered with a secondary level of importance, recent analyses of
corium behavior tend to confirm that uranium di-oxide should also
be further oxidized as UO2+x , with x being about 0.2. The energetic of
the reaction and the production of hydrogen should have no limited
effects on the premixing. The point here is the fact that this process
changes the melt properties and decreases the solidus and liquidus
temperature significantly (Fig. 17). Hydrogen generation, i.e. oxida-
tion, has been demonstrated in several experiments with UO2 –ZrO2
 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527
Fig. 17. Impact of degree of oxidation of the solidus and liquidus temperature of
UO2 . Comparison between experimental values from Manara et al. (2005) and cal-
culations with the GEMINI code.
melts (e.g. FARO and KROTOS), but the impact is currently not char-
acterized because of uncertainties related to the kinetic of the effect
and to the material properties themselves. Taking this effect better
into account would however improve the understanding and the
simulation of existing experiments.
7. The issue of oxidation
All in all, recent improvements and available data lead us to
consider that the status reached for modeling and understanding
allows us to perform safety analyses with a reasonable confidence,
i.e. reasonable uncertainty margins, for a number of restricted sit-
uations: UO2 ZrO2 melts, central break, gravity pour. However, a
large number of situations are not covered. In particular, it is clear
that the cases of corium containing substantial amounts of sub-
oxidized metals are still reluctant to any conclusion regarding the
global phenomenology. In a specific OECD report (2001) related to
hydrogen production sources during a severe accident, it was con-
cluded that the production during an FCI was poorly understood,
and even “unknown” for steam explosion. The available experi-
ments show contradictory results from apparent strong mitigation
of explosion as in the SERENA-26 project to strong enhancement
of explosion strength (ZrEx experiments, Cho et al., 1998). Back to
Fig. 3 already discussed, oxidation may indeed be considered as
the last step to investigate. It should be remarked that the prob-
lem has in fact already been tackled some time ago by Epstein et al.
(2000), but this pioneering work was not continued. It is indeed
well-known that zirconium is very reactive and, similarly to alu-
minum, can burn beyond some threshold temperature. Similarly,
a number of experiments were done in the past with sub-oxidized
melts (e.g. FARO L-11) but the attention was then focused on cases
with oxidized melt in order to reduce the complexity of the prob-
lem (further FARO tests were all with UO2 –ZrO2 melts). It is then
now time to come back to this issue. Furthermore, improvements
made in the analyses of the conditions of the vessel failure lead
to consider that the break will most likely occur at the location of
metal layers (due to the focusing effect). Oxidation appears then
today as the most important challenge to overcome for a realistic
evaluation of the FCI problem.
6
The experiments with sub-oxidized corium in the SERENA-2 project are subject
to various interpretations. Nevertheless, it is clear that the overall behavior was
different.
523
Fig. 18. The general issue of oxidation during premixing. The colors for the final
effect indicate whether it is positive for safety (green) or negative (red). Increasing
void is considered as positive, although this needs further clarifications. (For inter-
pretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)
The problem of oxidation is particularly difficult for several rea-
sons. First, it occurs in particularly “exotic” situations from a melt
at very high temperature likely to be in liquid state. Then model-
ing oxidation in the FCI conditions is in itself a challenge. Second,
oxidation will have a strong feedback impact on the flow in at least
three ways (Fig. 18):
(1) It will of course produce hydrogen and then will increase the
void in the mixture;
(2) The energy of the reaction will also heat up the melt or at least
reduce the cooling, with the effect of limiting or inhibiting the
solidification and this might impact both the premixing and
explosion;
(3) The change of material properties should act similarly.
MC3D is in principle able to handle the oxidation, at least partly,
and a parametric model has already been introduced and used for
the interpretation of FARO premixing experiments and of the ZrEx
explosion experiments (see the companion paper on explosion).
Nevertheless, only limited attention was paid to oxidation and the
model has to be improved both on physical ground and numerical
modeling. A particular difficulty, on the numerical point of view, is
to couple the oxidation level with the change of material properties.
Oxidation is thus the major modeling task for the improvement
of MC3D FCI models in the years to come. Nevertheless, such task
obviously necessitates additional experimental data both at the
small scale to better characterize the phenomenon itself and at the
integral scale to characterize the impact of the phenomenon.
8. General assessment and reactor evaluations
Obviously, the general qualification of the code is a complex pro-
cess which starts from the basic numerical implementations to the
full FCI problem with corium melts. The qualification of the numer-
ical methods and basic physical processes has been presented some
years ago (Meignen et al., 2005) and it is not necessary here to come
back on this. Since then, film boiling heat transfers have also been
assessed with model details (see e.g. Fig. 14). Melt jet fragmenta-
tion was also improved (see Fig. 10). We will then show here the
assessment of the overall behavior of the code on the FARO data
(Magallon and Huhtiniemi, 2001) and more particularly L-28 and
L-31 tests which are at low pressure, L-28 being saturated, L-31
being sub-cooled.
We start by analyzing the heat transfer and void production. To
do so, we use the CONST fragmentation model and impose a drop
diameter close to the experimentally measured one, i.e. 2.5 mm
(mean Sauter diameter). Fig. 19 shows a visualization of a typical
2D calculation of L-28. It is seen in the calculation that an important
void develops around the jet. This void leads to a partial ejection of
524 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527

Fig. 19. Visualization of a 2D calculation of the FARO L-28 experiment (Magallon and Huhtiniemi, 2001). The jet and hot drops are represented with red colors. The solidified
drops are represented as black dots. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

the water out of the tank. This ejection makes in fact the calculation
of the experiment particularly difficult but gives useful information
on the void in the mixture. It is seen that the void evolves in fact as
large bulges traveling along the jet. This is a typical behavior also
visible in reactor evaluations.
A similar calculation of the (subcooled) FARO L-31 test shows
a similar trend except that the void is far smaller. In the experi-
ment, no overflow of the water occurred. In both cases the pressure
rises steadily. However, the rise is about ten times larger in L28.
Indeed, in our computations, the pressure rise in L31 is essentially
due to the production of hydrogen due to oxidation of UO2 . The
net pressurization tends to nearly 0 if no hydrogen generation is
accounted in L31. The experimental pressurization is recovered
when the hydrogen mass is close to 40 g, i.e. close to the exper-
imental finding (about 50 g). Such effect is responsible for only
Fig. 20. Penetration of the melt for the calculations of the FARO L-31 and L-33. The
about 1 bar in L-28 (estimated in the experiment from the mass
time and height zeros are adjusted for the comparison (the water height in L-33 is
of hydrogen generated), compared to the about 10 bar from pure 1.6 m, whereas it is 1.45 m in L31).
vaporization (overall experimental pressurization is 11.5 bar), and
oxidation can then be omitted at first order for the interpretation
of this experiment. In Fig. 21 is shown what we call the “explosivity criterion” (mass
Finally, it is noticed that we also compute the debris bed for- of melt that should be subject to explosion, arbitrarily defined here
mation. This issue has not been discussed previously. It was the as the mass of liquid melt in cells with an amount of water larger
object of particular attention in the frame of the SARNET-2 project than 30%) for three calculations with three different drop size (the
(WP 5.3, Kudinov et al., 2012). This activity showed that the evalu-
ation of the debris bed when it is made partly from agglomerated
or un-fragmented melt is also a challenge that needs further effort.
In the present L-28 calculation, the jet found on the ground on the
water tank is obtained from a re-coalescence process of the drops
insufficiently solidified. The usual criterion that is used for this is
the mean temperature between solidus and liquidus (this criterion
should not be confused with the one for explosion discussed in the
section relative to solidification). This criterion was chosen from a
rough analysis of the forces exerted on the drops when they set-
tle on the ground with the same hypothesis as for the criterion for
explosion.
The FARO L-33 was devoted to steam explosion with a triggering
after about 1 s of flow. The test was similar to L-31 but with a higher
pressure (5 bar versus 2) and a slightly higher water level (1.6 m
versus 1.45). The global behavior of our calculation is very similar
to the one for L31. The penetration for our reference calculation
with Ddrop = 2.5 mm follows the same trends (Fig. 20). Due to the
larger water height, the contact with the bottom is slightly delayed.
However, whereas the penetration for L-31 is rather satisfactory, Fig. 21. Explosivity criteria for three calculations of FARO L-33 with three different
drop size. Red: D = 2.2 mm, green: D = 2.5 mm, blue: D = 3 mm. Abscissa: real calcu-
the drops contact the bottom at t ∼ 1.3 s in the L-33 calculation
lation time. The explosivity criterion here is the mass of liquid melt in cells with an
whereas the experimental report gives a value of 1 s. This would amount of water larger than 30%. (For interpretation of the references to color in
mean a faster penetration than L-31 that cannot be explained. this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527 525

thicker the line, the larger the drops). We estimate that the amount
of melt drops in contact with water is small in any case, smaller
than 7 kg. At the time of melt bottom contact, when the trigger is
applied this mass ranges from about 2 kg to about 5 kg. We notice
strong variations of the criterion with time, due to variations of void
in the mixture, due to pulsations of the vapor film around the jet.
Indeed, the explosion calculations are found also very sensitive to
the chosen time, in coherence with the explosivity criterion (see
companion paper in this issue). This highlights a strong depend-
ency of the explosion strength on the void and then on the exact
time of triggering. Considering this criterion, the most challenging
explosion would have been at about 1 s, when the melt reaches
approximately 40 cm from the bottom.
The assessment of the jet fragmentation model, already dis-
cussed previously, is now investigated in more realistic conditions
using again the FARO L-28 and L-31 tests. It is recalled that L-28 is
with saturated water and thus with a considerable void production Fig. 23. Example of 3D ex-vessel premixing calculation in a simplified French
whereas L-31 is strongly sub-cooled, with a small void produc- 1300 MWe reactor geometry and assumed central break. The presence of the lat-
tion. Then these two cases are expected to embed the impact of eral corridor induces a rupture of the axisymmetric behavior, deflation of the jet
two-phase flow configuration along the jet for a wide range of con- and subsequent breakup.

ditions. It is recalled that the model makes use of a filtering distance

to evaluate the characteristics along the jet surface. The assessment
is made using the jet diameter for this distance, i.e. 5 cm here. We
provide a sensitivity study, using the parameters:
- fragmentation rate coefficient, noted here Nf ;
- ratio of born diameter to wave length, noted here Nd .
As suspected from the previous analyses, it is found that the
model is very sensible to the parameters. Fig. 22 shows the corre-
lations between the parameters and the major results which are
the breakup length and the mean drop (Sauter) diameter. It is seen
that:
- The breakup length is rather well correlated with parameter Nf
(and weak impact of the other parameter) in almost the same way
for both cases. From these results, a reference value Nf = 0.125
might be chosen.
- The drop diameter is also well correlated to Nd (and weak impact
of the other parameter) but the correlation is different in the two
cases. The L31 calculations (high sub-cooling) give larger drops
than the L28 calculations (saturated, large void). However, this
difference is not seen in the experiments (it might even be con-
cluded that the drop size is a bit larger in L28). This discrepancy is
however found reasonable, considering the difficulty in building
a justified and qualified model for the jet fragmentation in the FCI
codes. All in all, a parameter Nd = 5 seems reasonable.
We then find that the application of the model to molten corium
interaction with water is consistent with the analysis performed
previously where good results were found with
Nd = 2 (we use a deviation has not been validated up to now. This is the reason why
surface tension
= 0.5 for the corium in our calculations).
Finally, we will now examine the current capabilities of the code
regarding reactor applications. The code has already been success-
fully used for probabilistic safety analyses, with 2D calculations
(Meignen et al., 2003). The general robustness is then sufficient
to cover a wide span of conditions. However, the general recent
improvements allow now to investigate 3D situations, as shown in
Fig. 23. A major characteristic of MC3D is its ability to propose sim-
ulations without inherent limitations. The melt ejection from the
vessel is directly computed whereas it has to be stipulated as an
input condition in other codes as JEMI or JASMINE. This has been
the subject of important assessment analyses for the sake of studies
related to the direct containment heating phenomenon (high pres-
sure melt ejection), see Meignen and Janin (2010). The code also
computes the debris bed formation, according to the solidification
of the melt. As already pointed out, this particular phenomenon
needs however further investigations but it is nevertheless noted
that, unless with small jet diameter (say, smaller than 10 cm), we
find that the constitution of a highly porous coolable debris bed is
quite improbable for the geometry of PWR’s (distances from the
vessel head to bottom of the reactor pit of 3–5 m). The case of most
recent BWR’s with higher reactor pit heights and water level is more
favorable for the formation of a coolable debris bed. An interesting
feature in the calculations shown in Fig. 23 is the role of the access
corridor which yields an unstable deviation of the jet. Again, this
can be evaluated currently only thanks to the precise simulation of
the jet. This deviation leads to a noticeable increase of the global
fragmentation rate and mixing with the water.
However, it should be highlighted that the processes of frag-
mentation yielded by the cross flow of water at the origin of the jet
we currently do not recommend using the code for situations with

Fig. 22. Correlations between the breakup length and parameter Nf on the left and mean drop diameter with parameter Nd on the right for all L28 and L31 calculations. Plain
symbols are related to the sensitivity study calculations and empty symbols are for reference calculation with parameters chosen to yield the best result.
526 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527
lateral breaks for safety studies. This is a very serious limitation
and it is necessary investigating rapidly such configurations.
To do so, additional experiments would be, of course, of great
help.
9. Conclusions, perspectives for improvements
This paper synthetizes the main developments of the FCI pre-
mixing models in the computer code MC3D and highlights the
major difficulties and challenges for a sufficient resolution of the
problem. It has been shown that the models are at a devel-
opment state that they can be used for both interpretations of
most of the existing experiments and for reactor applications.
However, there still exist serious limitations to cover a sufficient
range of conditions for nuclear safety and this limits the over-
all confidence in the evaluations. Currently, model verifications
are limited to cases with UO2 /ZrO2 melts and axisymmetric sit-
uations with central break. The limitations not only concern the
models: there is a real lack of data for verifications of further mod-
els.
- The major challenge today is related to oxidation of the melt. Cur-
rently, the models are too simple and the knowledge too limited
to be able to provide results with a sufficient confidence for reac-
tor applications. The challenge is reinforced by the fact that the
probability is high that, in case of vessel failure, the melt will
firstly be ejected with a high metallic content (or will even be
purely metallic).
- The second challenge is to improve the confidence in extrapola-
tions of the models to reactor conditions in terms of geometry
and scale. The melt should flow with a velocity noticeably larger
than in most of the performed experiments. Also, there is little
chance that the break occurs at the center of the vessel so that 3D
effects should appear with, in particular, cross flows. We do not
currently recommend using MC3D or other models for the eval-
uation of lateral break situations, unless of course for speculative
analysis and considering high uncertainty.
- At a lower level of priority (from our point of view), there is a need
for a general improvement for both understanding and modeling
of some already addressed phenomena. This concerns in particu-
lar the melt fragmentation and dispersion, the melt solidification
and the coolant flow map.
These conclusions, which were also those drawn for the recent
SERENA-2 program, allow us to draw a quite clear path for further
work both regarding modeling and experiments. With the objec-
tives to address the cited challenges, IRSN is starting a five-year
program with the collaboration of CEA for integral experiments in
the KROTOS facility, the CNRS (LEMTA – Nancy), and the funding of
EDF, AREVA and the French Government.
Acknowledgments
MC3D history goes back to about 20 years ago and the
present authors acknowledge the contributors to the code devel-
opment and documentation, in particular Georges Berthoud (CEA,
France), Michel Valette (CEA), Claude Brayer (CEA), Gilles Ratel
(CEA).
This work was partly funded by Electricité de France (EDF).
Mitja Uršič and Matjaž Leskovar from the Joseph Stefan Institute
(Slovenia) are thanked for their contribution regarding solidifica-
tion.
Appendix: resolution procedure.
Once, from the momentum equations, the formal relationships
[U, V, W ]n+1
m = Q n (P n+1 ) + Rn are introduced in the mass and
energy balances, one gets a set of balances M with the volume frac-
tions, pressures and temperatures as main variables Y. At a given
time step n + 1, one has to solve M · Yn+1 = 0 by the iterative Newton
method. A Taylor decomposition leads us to solve at each iteration
k:
∂M
ıY + M · Y k = 0
∂Y
To do so, the system is again simplified by decomposing for each
cell Yi = Xi + Pneighbours and this leads formally to a system of the
form:
A · ıX + BıPneighbours = M · Y k
The matrix A can be decomposed in a product of two triangular
inferior and superior matrixes (LU decomposition). Multiplication
by L-1 of the previous system leads to:
U · ıX + L−1 BıPneighbours = L−1 · M · Y k
Since X contains also the pressure in the considered cell, then
some lines of the systems contains only the pressures. They can be
isolated to form a new system that can be finally solved through
various methods. Once the pressure is obtained, one can deduce
the volume fraction and temperatures at the new iteration. The
balances M · Yk+1 are then evaluated and if they are below a given
small threshold, the system has converged and the final velocities
are deduced (from the pressures).
References
Bang, K.H., Kim, J.M., Kim, D.H., 2003. Experimental study of melt jet breakup in
water. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 40 (10), 807–813.
Berthoud, G., 2006. Models and validation of particulate debris coolability with the
code MC3D-REPO. Nucl. Eng. Des. 236 (19–21), 2135–2143.
Berthoud, G., D’Aillon, L.G., 2009. Film boiling heat transfer around a very high
temperature thin wire immersed into water at pressure from 1 to 210 bar:
experimental results and analysis. Int. J. Thermal Sci. 48 (9), 1728–1740.
Berthoud, G., Valette, M., 1994. Development of a multidimensional model for
the premixing phase of a fuel–coolant interaction. Nucl. Eng. Des. 149 (1994),
409–418.
Bürger, M., Cho, S.H., Carachalios, C., Müller, K., Unger, H., Jacobs, H., 1986. Effect
of Solid Crusts on the Hydrodynamic Fragmentation of Melt Drops, Science and
Technology of Fast Reactor Safety. BNES, London.
Bürger, M., Cho, S.H., Berg, E.V., Schatz, A., 1995. Breakup of melt jets as pre-condition
for premixing: modeling and experimental verification. Nucl. Eng. Des. 155,
215–251.
Castrillon Escobar, S., Meignen, R., Rimbert, N., Gradeck, M., 2013. Modeling liquid
nuclear fuel fragmentation and dispersion during a severe nuclear incident. In:
SDMA 2013 – 5th Int. Conf. on Spray Deposition and Melt Atomization, Bremen,
Germany, September 23–25, 2013.
Cho, S.H., et al., 1991. Experimental investigation with respect to the modeling of
fragmentation in parallel shear flows of liquids. In: Conference of sprays and
aerosols, Guilford, UK, September 30–October 2, 1991.
Cho, D.H., Armstrong, D.R., Gunther, W.H., 1998. Experiments on Interactions
Between Zirconium-Containing Melt and Water, NUREG/CR-5372.
Epstein, M., 1977. Stability of a submerged frozen crust. ASME J. Heat Transf. 99, 527.
Epstein, M., Fauske, H.K., 2001. Applications of the turbulent entrainment assump-
tion to immiscible gas–liquid and liquid–liquid systems. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 79
(May (4)), 453–462.
Epstein, M., Hauser, G.M., 1980. Subcooled forced-convection film boiling in the
forward stagnation region of a sphere or cylinder. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 23
(2), 179–189.
Epstein, M., Fauske, H.K., Theofanous, T.G., 2000. On the mechanism of aluminum
ignition in steam explosions. Nucl. Eng. Des. 201 (September (1)), 71–82.
Hall, R.W., Fletcher, D.F., 1995. Validation of CHYMES: simulant studies. Nucl. Eng.
Des. 155 (1–2), 97–114.
Haraldsson, H.Ó., (Doctoral thesis) 2000. Breakup of Jet and Drops During Premix-
ing Phase of Fuel–Coolant Interactions. KTH, Superseded Departments, Energy
Technology.
Harlow, F.H., Amsden, A.A., 1971. A numerical fluid dynamics calculation method
for all flow speeds. J. Comput. Phys. 8, 197–213.
Huhtiniemi, I., Magallon, D., Hohmann, H., 2001. Results of recent KROTOS FCI tests:
alumina versus corium melts. Nucl. Eng. Des. 204 (1–3), 391–400.
 R. Meignen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 280 (2014) 511–527
Inoue, A., Fujii, Y., Lee, S., 1997. Studies on transient film boiling heat transfer from
thin wires penetrating through liquid interface. In: Proceeding of the Int. Semi-
nar on Vapour Explosion and Explosive Eruptions, Sendaï, Japan, p. 123.
Ishii, M., Hibili, T., 2006. Thermo-fluid Dynamics of Two-phase Flow. Springer,
New-York.
Kahre, P., Yang, V., 2013. Drag coefficient of deforming and fragmenting liquid
droplets. In: ILASS Americas, 25th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization
and Spray Systems, Pittsburgh, PA, May 2013.
Kim, B., Corradini, M.L., 1978. Modeling of small-scale single droplet fuel/coolant
interactions. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 98 (1), 16–28.
Kudinov, P., Davydov, M., Pohlner, G., Bürger, M., Buck, M., Meignen, R., 2012.
Validation of the FCI codes against DEFOR-A data on the mass fraction of agglom-
erated debris. In: 5th European Review Meeting on Severe Accident Research
(ERMSAR-2012), Cologne, Germany, March 21–23, 2012.
Liu, C., Theofanous, T.G., 1996, September. Film Boiling on Spheres in Single and Two
Phase Flows, DOE/ER/12933.3.
Magallon, D., Huhtiniemi, I., 2001. Corium melt quenching tests at low pressure and
subcooled water in FARO. Nucl. Eng. Des. 204 (1–3), 369–376.
Manara, D., Ronchi, C., Sheindlin, M., Lewis, M., Brykin, M., 2005. Melting of stoi-
chiometric and hyperstoichiometric uranium dioxide. J. Nucl. Mater. 342 (2005),
148–163.
Marmottant, P., Villermaux, E., 2004. On spray formation. J. Fluid Mech. 498, 73–111.
Matsuo, E., Abe, Y., Chitose, K., Koyama, K., Itoh, K., 2008. Study on jet breakup
behavior at core disruptive accident for fast breeder reactor. Nucl. Eng. Des.
238 (August (8)), 1996–2004.
Meignen, R., 2005. Status of the qualification program of the multiphase flow code
MC3D. In: Proceedings of ICAPP’05, Seoul, Korea, May 15–19, 2005, Paper 5081.
Meignen, R., Berthoud, G., 1997. Fragmentation of molten fuel jets. In: Proceeding
of the Int. Seminar on Vapour Explosion and Explosive Eruptions, Sendaï, Japan,
p. 83.
Meignen, R., Janin, T., 2010. On the analysis and evaluation of direct containment
heating with the multidimensional multiphase flow code MC3D. Sci. Technol.
Nucl. Install., http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/289792.
Meignen, R., Dupas, J., Chaumont, B., 2003. First evaluations of ex-vessel fuel–coolant
interaction with MC3D. In: 10th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reac-
tor Thermal Hydraulics (NURETH-10), Seoul, Korea, October 5–9, 2003.
Meignen, R., et al., 2005. Comparative review of FCI computer models used in the
OECD-SERENA program. In: Proceedings of ICAPP’05, Seoul, Korea, May 15–19,
2005, Paper 5087.
Meignen, R., Raverdy, B., Picchi, S., Lamome, J., 2014a. The challenge of mod-
eling fuel–coolant interaction: Part II – Steam explosion. Nucl. Eng. Des.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.08.028.
Meignen, R., Raverdy, B., Buck, M., Pohlner, G., Kudinov, P., Ma, W., Brayer, C., Piluso,
P., Hong, S.-W., Leskovar, M., Uršič, M., Albrecht, G., Lindholm, I., Ivanov, I., 2014,
December. Status of steam explosion understanding and modelling. Ann. Nucl.
Energy 74, 125–133.
Moriyama, K., Takagi, S., Muramatsu, K., Nakamura, H., Maruyama, H., 2006. Evalua-
tion of containment failure probability by ex-vessel steam explosion in Japanese
LWR plants. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 43 (7), 774–784.
527
Narayanan, K.S., Das, S.K., Jasmin Sudha, A., Rao, E.V.H.M., Lydia, G., Murthy, S.S.,
Kumaresan, M., Harvey, J., Kasinathan, N., Rajan, M., 2006. Assessment of thermal
and hydrodynamic fragmentation in molten fuel–coolant interaction with sim-
ulant system. In: Proceedings of ICONE14 International Conference on Nuclear
Engineering, Miami, FL, USA, July 17–20.
NRC, 1975. Reactor Safety Study. An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.
S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1400-MR; NUREG-75/014-MR.
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/7134131
OECD, 2001. In-Vessel and Ex-Vessel Hydrogen Sources, NEA/CSNI/R(2001)15.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/docs/2001/csni-r2001-15.pdf
OECD, 2006. Research Programme on Fuel–Coolant Interaction Steam Explo-
sion – SERENA, Final Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)11. http://www.oecd-nea.org/
globalsearch/download.php?doc=6599
Pohlner, G., Buck, M., Meignen, R., Kudinov, P., Ma, W., Polidoro, F., Takasuo, E., 2014,
December. Analyses on ex-vessel debris formation and coolability in SARNET
frame. Annu. Nucl. Energy 74, 50–57.
Sakurai, A., Shiotsu, M., Hata, K., 1990. A general correlation for pool film boiling
heat transfer from a horizontal cylinder to subcooled liquid. J. Heat Transf. 112,
430–450.
Schröder, M., Pohlner, G., Buck, M., Bürger, M., Lohnert, G., Vusic, Z., 2009. Inves-
tigation of main limiting effects to strong steam explosions in 3D geometry
considering real accident scenarios. In: Nuclear Energy for New Europe (NENE
2009), Bled, Slovenia, September 14–17.
Spencer, B.W., Gabor, J.D., Cassulo, J.C., 1986. Effect of boiling regime on melt stream
breakup in water. In: 4th Miami Int. Symp. on Multiphase Transport and Partic-
ular Phenomena, December 15–17, 1986, pp. 269–296.
Spencer, B.W., Wang, K., Blomquist, C.A., McUmber, L.M., Schneider, J.P., 1994.
Fragmentation and Quench Behavior of Corium Melt Streams in Water,
NUREG/CR-6133, ANL-93/32.
Theofanous, T.G., 1996. On the proper formulation of safety goals and assessment
of safety margins for rare and high-consequence hazards. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
54, 243–257.
Theofanous, T.G., Li, G.J., 2008. On the physics of aerobreakup. Phys. Fluids 20,
052103.
Theofanous, T.G., Yuen, W.W., 1995. The probability of alpha-mode containment
failure. Nucl. Eng. Des. 155 (April (1–2)), 459–473.
Theofanous, T.G., Yuen, W.W., Angelini, S.S., 1999a. The verification basis of the PM-
ALPHA code. Nucl. Eng. Des. 189, 59–102.
Theofanous, T.G., Yuen, W.W., Freeman, K., Chen, X., 1999b. Verification basis of the
ESPROSE.m code. Nucl. Eng. Des. 189 (1), 103–138.
Theofanous, T.G., et al., 2012. On the physics of aerobreakup, II. Viscous liquids. Phys.
Fluids 24, 022104.
Theofanous, T.G., et al., 2013. On the physics of aerobreakup, III. Viscoelastic liquids.
Phys. Fluids 25, 032101.
Uršič, M., Leskovar, M., Mavko, B., 2011. Improved solidification influence modelling
for Eulerian fuel–coolant interaction. Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (April (4)), 1206–1216.
Yang, J.W., Bankoff, S.G., 1987. Solidification effects on the fragmentation of molten
metal drops behind a pressure shock wave. ASME J. Heat Transf. 109 (February),
226.