0
Research Papers

Analysis of Computational Fluid Dynamics Code FLUENT Capabilities for Supercritical Water Heat-Transfer Applications in Vertical Bare Tubes

[+] Author and Article Information
Amjad Farah

Mem. ASME Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology,
2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, ON L1J 5S1, Canada
e-mail: amjad.farah@uoit.ca

Glenn Harvel

Mem. ASME Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology,
2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, ON L1J 5S1, Canada
e-mail: glenn.harvel@uoit.ca

Igor Pioro

Mem. ASME Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology,
2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, ON L1J 5S1, Canada

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received August 5, 2015; final manuscript received January 14, 2016; published online June 17, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Leon Cizelj.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 2(3), 031016 (Jun 17, 2016) (12 pages) Paper No: NERS-15-1171; doi: 10.1115/1.4032642 History: Received August 05, 2015; Accepted January 21, 2016

In this paper, the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code FLUENT was used to predict wall-temperature profiles inside vertical bare tubes with supercritical water (SCW) as the cooling medium, to assess the capabilities of FLUENT for SCW heat-transfer applications. Numerical results are compared to experimental data and current one-dimensional (1D) models represented by existing heat-transfer empirical correlations. Wall-temperature and heat-transfer coefficients were analyzed to select the best model to describe the fluid flow before, at, and after the pseudocritical region. kϵ and kω turbulent models were evaluated in the process, with variations in the submodel parameters such as viscous heating, thermal effects, and low-Reynolds-number correction. Results of the analysis show a fit of ±10% for wall temperatures using the SST kω model within the deteriorated heat-transfer regime and less than ±5% within the normal heat-transfer regime. The accuracy of the model is higher than any empirical correlation tested in the mentioned regimes and provides additional information about the multidimensional effects between the bulk-fluid and wall temperatures.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Thermophysical properties of water within pseudocritical-point region

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Graphical representation of computational domain. (b) Graphical representation of the 2D mesh in the 3D space.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Initial experimental, calculated, and simulated results for low-range mass and heat fluxes in the 4-m mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Initial experimental, calculated, and simulated results for mid-range mass and heat fluxes in the 2- and 4-m meshes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Control case for sensitivity analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Pressure variation effect on bulk-fluid and wall-temperature distributions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Specific heat trends with pressure variation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Heat-flux variation effect on bulk-fluid temperature distributions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Heat-flux variation effect on wall-temperature distributions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Experimental, calculated, and CFD simulated results for NHT in 2-m computational domains

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Turbulent kinetic energy based on flow centerline for the RKE and SST models, 1–3 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Experimental, calculated, and simulated results for DHT in 2-m computational domains

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Turbulent kinetic energy based on flow centerline for the RKE and SST models, 1–3 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Uncertainty in wall temperatures for Mokry et al. correlation [12]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Uncertainty in HTCs for Mokry et al. correlation [12]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Uncertainty in wall temperatures for RKE model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Uncertainty in wall temperatures for SST model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Uncertainty in HTC values for RKE model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Uncertainty in HTC values for SST model

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In