Influence of Two-Phase Crossflow for Void Prediction in Bundles Using Thermal-Hydraulic System Codes †
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Review of NUPEC Test Facility
2.2. Multi-Dimensional Modeling
2.2.1. Common Features for Consistent Modeling
2.2.2. Multi-Dimensional Model of MARS-KS
2.2.3. Multi-Dimensional Model of TRACE
3. Results
3.1. Model Comparison of Each System Code
3.2. Code-to-Code Comparison
3.3. Influence of Crossflow-to-Code Predictions
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kalaga, D.V.; Yadav, A.; Goswami, S.; Bhusare, V.; Pant, H.J.; Dalvi, S.V.; Joshi, J.B.; Roy, S. Comparative analysis of liquid hydrodynamics in a co-current flow-through bubble column with densely packed internals via radiotracing and Radioactive Particle Tracking (RPT). Chem. Eng. Sci. 2017, 170, 332–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breeze, P. Nuclear Power. In Nuclear Power Generation Technologies. 2019, pp. 399–429. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081026311000171?via%3Dihub (accessed on 16 July 2020). [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Firouzi, M.; Mitchell, T.; Rufford, T.E.; Leonardi, C.; Towler, B. A critical review of flow maps for gas-liquid flows in vertical pipes and annuli. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 326, 350–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schlegel, J.P.; Sawant, P.; Paranjape, S.; Ozar, B.; Hibiki, T.; Ishii, M. Void fraction and flow regime in adiabatic upward two-phase flow in large diameter vertical pipes. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2009, 239, 2864–2874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Hibiki, T. Flow regime transition criteria for upward two-phase flow in vertical rod bundles. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2017, 108, 423–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. MARS Code Manual; Volume V: Models and Correlations; KAERI/TR-3872/2009; Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute: Daejeon, Korea, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Y.S.; Kim, T.W. Assessment of void fraction predictability of system codes in subchannels. Kerntechnik 2018, 83, 414–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubin, A.; Schoedel, A.; Avramova, M.; Utsuno, H.; Bajorek, S.; Velazquez-Lozada, A. OECD/NRC Benchmark Based on NUPEC PWR Subchannel and Bundle Tests (PSBT); Volume 1: Experimental Database and Final Problem Specifications. OECD/NEA Nuclear Science Committee, 2012. Available online: http://www.oecd-nea.org/globalsearch/download.php?doc=77653 (accessed on 16 July 2020).
- United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TRACE V5.0 Theory Manual: Field Equations, Solution Methods, and Physical Models; ML071000097; United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
- Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. MARS Code Manual; Volume I: Code Structure, System Models, and Solution Methods; KAERI/TR-2812/2004; Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute: Daejeon, Korea, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. RELAP5/MOD3.3 Code Manual; Volume I: Field Equations, Solution Methods, and Physical Models; NUREG/CR-5535/Rev P5; United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- Nuclear Energy Agency. International Benchmark on Pressurised Water Reactor Sub-Channel and Bundle Tests; Volume II: Benchmark Results of Phase I–Void Distribution. NEA/NSC/R(2015)4. 2016. Available online: https://www.oecd-nea.org/science/docs/2015/nsc-r2015-4.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2020).
- Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety. MARS-KS Code Manual; Volume II: Input Requirements; KINS/RR-1282 Rev.1; Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety: Daejeon, Korea, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Todreas, N.E.; Kazimi, M.S. Subchannel Analysis. In Nuclear Systems II: Elements of Thermal Hydraulic Design. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1990; pp. 246–251. Available online: http://www.gammaexplorer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Nuclear-Systems-II-Elements-of-Thermal-Hydraulic-Design-Todreas.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2020).
- Mao, H.; Yang, B.W.; Wang, S. A Review of Void Drift Models in Subchannel Analysis. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 2018, 193, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item | B5 | B6 | B7 |
---|---|---|---|
Cross-sectional scheme | | | |
Number of heater rods | 25 | 25 | 24 |
Number of thimble rods | − | − | 1 |
Radial power distribution | | | |
Axial power distribution | Uniform | Cosine | Cosine |
Number of simple spacers | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Number of spacers w/o mixing vane | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Number of spacers w/ mixing vane | 7 | 7 | 7 |
Void Fraction (Number of Samples) | Value | MARS-KS 3D (Default) | MARS-KS 3D (No Mixing) |
---|---|---|---|
Void .LT. 30 (382 samples) | Mean | 0.0773 | 0.0773 |
Standard deviation | 0.0418 | 0.0418 | |
Hypothesis test | Is the test mean significantly greater than 2σ (=0.08)? | ||
Results | No | No | |
t-Value | −1.245 | −1.255 | |
Probability > t | 0.893 | 0.895 | |
Void .GT. 30 (275 samples) | Mean | 0.0662 | 0.0661 |
Standard deviation | 0.0433 | 0.0434 | |
Hypothesis test | Is the test mean significantly greater than 2σ (=0.08)? | ||
Results | No | No | |
t-Value | −5.281 | −5.302 | |
Probability > t | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Void (Samples) | Value | TRACE 1D | TRACE 3D | MARS-KS 1D | MARS-KS 3D |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
All (657) | Mean | 0.1114 | 0.1158 | 0.0726 | 0.0727 |
Standard deviation | 0.0762 | 0.0779 | 0.0415 | 0.0428 | |
Hypothesis test | Is the test mean significantly greater than 2σ (=0.08)? | ||||
Results | Yes | Yes | No | No | |
t Value | 10.571 | 11.792 | −4.589 | −4.391 | |
Probability > t | 1.586 × 10−24 | 1.522 × 10−29 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
LT.30 (382) | Mean | 0.1451 | 0.1525 | 0.0759 | 0.0773 |
Standard deviation | 0.0743 | 0.0738 | 0.0397 | 0.0418 | |
Hypothesis test | Is the test mean significantly greater than 2σ (=0.08)? | ||||
Results | Yes | Yes | No | No | |
t Value | 17.136 | 19.200 | −2.018 | −1.245 | |
Probability > t | 1.646 × 10−49 | 2.945 × 10−58 | 0.978 | 0.893 | |
GT.30 (275) | Mean | 0.0646 | 0.0648 | 0.0679 | 0.0662 |
Standard deviation | 0.0493 | 0.0495 | 0.0436 | 0.0433 | |
Hypothesis test | Is the test mean significantly greater than 2σ (= 0.08)? | ||||
Results | No | No | No | No | |
t Value | −5.188 | −5.080 | −4.590 | −5.281 | |
Probability > t | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, Y.; Kim, T. Influence of Two-Phase Crossflow for Void Prediction in Bundles Using Thermal-Hydraulic System Codes. Energies 2020, 13, 3686. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13143686
Lee Y, Kim T. Influence of Two-Phase Crossflow for Void Prediction in Bundles Using Thermal-Hydraulic System Codes. Energies. 2020; 13(14):3686. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13143686
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Yunseok, and Taewan Kim. 2020. "Influence of Two-Phase Crossflow for Void Prediction in Bundles Using Thermal-Hydraulic System Codes" Energies 13, no. 14: 3686. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13143686