Validation of a CFD Code Star-CCM+ for Liquid Lead-Bismuth Eutectic Thermal-Hydraulics Using TALL-3D Experiment

The engineering design, performance analysis and safety assessment of Generation IV heavy liquid metal cooled nuclear reactors calls for advanced and qualified numerical tools. These tools need to be qualified before used in decision making process. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) codes provide detailed means for thermal-hydraulics analysis of pool-type nuclear reactors. This paper describes modeling of a forced to natural flow experiment in TALL-3D experimental facility using a commercial CFD code Star-CCM+. TALL-3D facility is 7 meters high LBE loop with two parallel hot legs and a cold leg. One of the hot legs accommodates the 3D test section, a cylindrical pool where the multi-dimensional flow conditions vary between thermal mixing and stratification depending on the mass flow rate and the power of the heater surrounding the pool. The pool outlet temperature which affects the natural convection flow rates in the system is governed by the flow structure in the pool. Therefore, in order to predict the dynamics of the TALL-3D facility it is crucial to resolve the flow inside the 3D test section. Specifically designed measurement instrumentation set-up provides steady state and transient data for calibration and validation of numerical models. The validity of the CFD model is assessed by comparing the computational results to experimental results.

[1]  L. Chandra,et al.  CFD analyses of liquid metal flow in sub-channels for Gen IV reactors , 2011 .

[2]  Qingyan Chen,et al.  A new turbulence model for near-wall natural convection , 1998 .

[3]  V. Sobolev,et al.  Properties of Liquid Metal Coolants , 2012 .

[4]  Pavel Kudinov,et al.  Development of TALL-3D Facility Design for Validation of Coupled STH and CFD Codes , 2012 .

[5]  D. Bestion,et al.  Applicability of two-phase CFD to nuclear reactor thermalhydraulics and elaboration of Best Practice Guidelines , 2012 .

[6]  Matthew F. Barone,et al.  Measures of agreement between computation and experiment: Validation metrics , 2004, J. Comput. Phys..

[7]  Timothy G. Trucano,et al.  Verification and validation benchmarks , 2008 .

[8]  William L. Oberkampf,et al.  Assessment Criteria for Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation Benchmark Experiments , 2014 .

[9]  William L. Oberkampf,et al.  Guide for the verification and validation of computational fluid dynamics simulations , 1998 .

[10]  D. Struwe,et al.  European lead fast reactor—ELSY , 2011 .

[11]  Francesco Saverio D'Auria,et al.  Thermal-Hydraulic System Codes in Nulcear Reactor Safety and Qualification Procedures , 2008 .

[12]  F. Menter.  Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications , 1994 .

[13]  Leonard E. Schwer,et al.  An overview of the PTC 60/V&V 10: guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics , 2007, Engineering with Computers.

[14]  D. Wilcox.  Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models , 1988 .

[15]  U. S. Doe.  A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems , 2002 .