Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
\
|
c
c
+
c
c
=
i
j
j
i
ij
x
u
x
u
s
2
1
(4)
Energy:
0 =
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
j
p j
j
x
T
K T c u
x
(5)
Turbulence kinetic energy:
i
i
i
i
t
j k
t
j
j
x
u
k
x
u
x
k
k u
x c
c
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
c
c
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
c
c
3
2
(6)
Dissipation energy rate:
k
C
x
u
k
x
u
k
C
x
u
x
i
i
i
i
t
j
t
j
j
2
2 1
3
2
c
c
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
c
c
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
c
c
(7)
2
k
C
t
=
(8)
The constants used in Equation (8) are presented in Table 1.
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 Page 391
Table 1: Constant values used in turbulence equation
2
C
1
C
C
1.3 1.92 1.44 0.09
4 VALIDATION OF RESULTS
To validate the present results, they are compared to the results of [3] and [10]. For this purpose, friction factor is
calculated and compared to numerical results of Gajapathy et al [10] and experimental results of Novendstern [3]. Figure
3 illustrates this comparison. Friction factor is calculated according to:
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
| A
=
l
d
V
P
f
h
2
2
(9)
Figure 2 indicates that obtained results of current model are in good agreement with numerical and experimental data. As
is understood from this figure, current study results are so close to Novendstern experimental results and Gajapathy et al.
[3] simulation except for first Reynolds. It should be mentioned that Gajapathy et al. [3] also compared their results to
experimental results of Novendstern [10]. According to Figure 2 the difference between Gajapathy et al. [3] and
Novendstern [10] results is more than the difference between current work and Novendstern results. In addition trend of
friction factor variation against Reynolds number is entirely similar to both experimental and numerical results.
Figure 2: Comparison of friction factor between current work and other studies
5 RESULTS
In order to investigate effects of helical wires on fluid flow performance and heat transfer around fuel rods, results are
compared with a system without helical wire wrapped.
5.1 Fluid flow performance in reactor core Body paragraphs
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate velocity contours in different heights for both cases (with and without helical wire wrapped) in
Re=89618. According to Figure 3 fluid velocity in regions of channel where helical wires are near wall is more than other
regions. This region is shown by red color in Figure 3. Position of maximum velocity point along the channel varies with
rotation of helical wire which indicates rotation of fluid along the channel. Rotation of fluid along channel from front
view is clockwise. On the other hand, in the system without helical wire wrapped, maximum velocity position remains
constant along the channel (see Figure 4).
In other word, coolant in this case without any kind of rotation and mixing flow through channel. It should be mentioned
that maximum velocity is more when helical wire is used. Comparison of pressure drop values and friction factors
between both cases (with and without helical wires) is illustrated in Table 2.
Calculations indicates that hydraulic diameter for channel with helical wire is 4 mm and for channel without helical wire
is 4.9 mm. According to the results, pressure drop in channel with helical wires is about two time greater than pressure
drop in channel without helical wires. Also it is understood that by increasing fluid inlet velocity pressure drop would
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 Page 392
increase. Friction factors values are nearly constant. According to friction factor relationship, this parameter is a function
of hydraulic diameter and inlet velocity. Variation of these two parameter causes reduction in friction. Figure 5 illustrates
velocity values along hexagonal channel with helical wire-wrapped for two positions near channel central rod (black line)
and near channel wall (red line).
Z=0L Z=0.6L
Z=0.2L Z=0.8L
Z=0.4L Z=L
Figure 3: Velocity distribution around heating rods with helical wire-wrapped
Z=0L Z=0.6L
Z=0.2L Z=0.8L
2
Z=0.4L Z=L
Figure 4: Velocity distribution around heating rods without helical wire-wrapped
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 Page 393
Table 2: Comparison of pressure drop and friction factor in channels with and without helical wire-wrapped
P(pa) F Re
Without wire wire
Without
wire
wire
329 602 0.01143 0.01018 10308
4972 8737 0.00678 0.00623 50053
9371 18550 0.00577 0.00556 77463
1201 23926 0.00552 0.00536 89618
15260 30633 0.00529 0.00518
10308
5
According to Fig. 5, a velocity variation along the channel for both lines is approximately uniform, and velocity near
channel wall is greater than channels central rod velocity. This is because of fluid flow rotation which is due to helical
wire-wrapped. Points where their velocity values are zero are locations of helical wire-wrapped. Velocity values along
hexagonal channel without helical wire-wrapped are reported for two positions near channel central rod (black line) and
near channel wall (red line). According to Fig. 5, velocity variations along the channel for both line is non-uniform and
velocity near channel wall is smaller than channels central rod velocity
Figure 5: Velocity distribution in heating rod channels with helical wire-wrapped (Re=89618)
Figure 6: Velocity distribution in heating rod channels without helical wire-wrapped (Re=89618)
5.2 Heat transfer performance of coolant in reactor core
Temperature contours for cases with and without helical wire-wrapped are shown in Fig. 7 and 8, respectively. According
to fig. 7, because of fuel rod's heat flux, temperature is maximized in center of channel with helical wire-wrapped. Also,
temperature of points near hexagonal wall of channel with helical wire-wrapped is greater than channel without helical
wire-wrapped near wall temperature. Temperature is maximized in center of channel without helical wire-wrapped, too.
Temperature of points near hexagonal wall of channel without helical wire-wrapped is near inlet fluid temperature. In
other word existence of helical wire-wrapped causes more coolant mixing along channel and hence the temperature
counter would be more uniform in channel cross section. Temperature of points where helical wires join rods is
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 Page 394
maximum. These pointes are hot spot. Simulation shows that by decreasing Reynolds number (decreasing inlet
velocity) number and hot spot and the maximum temperature of them decrease.
Z=0L Z=0.6L
Z=0.2L Z=0.8L
Z=0.4L Z=1L
Figure 7: Temperature distribution over heating rods with helical wire-wrapped (Re=89618)
Z=0L Z=0.6L
Z=0.2L Z=0.85L
Z=0.4L Z=1L
Figure 8: Temperature distribution over heating rods without helical wire-wrapped (Re=89618)
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 Page 395
In Fig.9, red zone in contact region of helical wires and rods is representative of hot points.
Figure 9: Contour of Temperature for total fuel bundle
Figure 10 illustrates fluid temperature variation along channel for different heat fluxes. According to Fig.10, any increase
in heat flux causes to increase in temperature.
Figure 10: Temperature distribution for different fluxes
Table 3 illustrates temperature variation along channel for water and molten Sodium with Re=89618. According to this
table for same heat fluxes, temperature variation along the channel for water is less than molten Sodium. Temperature
rise rate for water is about 1% and for molten Sodium is about 4%.
Table 3: Comparison of temperature variation in channel with helical wire-wrapped for water and molten sodium
Z/L
1.0 0.75 0.5 0.25 0
697.5 691.3 685.4 679.2 673.2 Sodium
573.5 570.4 566.9 565.0 565.6 Water
Variation of averaged heat transfer coefficient and Nusslt number on central fuel rod with helical wire-wrapped in
hexagonal channel and for different Reynolds numbers is shown in Fig.11.
Results indicate that by increasing Reynolds number, averaged heat transfer coefficient and averaged Nusslt number
increase. Rate of increase in these two parameters decreases with increase in Reynolds number.
Nusselt number and heat transfer coefficient variations against inlet temperature are plotted in Fig.12 for different
Reynolds numbers (for channel with helical wire-rapped). According to thes Fig, increase in inlet temperature causes
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 Page 396
Nusselt number and heat transfer coefficient to increase. But increase in Reynolds number causes Nusselt number and
heat transfer coefficient to decrease. Shown in Fig. 13 is the variation of ratio of Nusselt number of rods with helical
wires to the Nusselt number of rods without helical wires against Reynolds number. According to this Fig, with increase
of Reynolds number, the Nasselt ration increases.
Figure 11: Averaged heat transfer coefficient and averaged Nusslt number against for Reynolds numbers
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 Page 397
Figure 12: Averaged Nusslt number and averaged heat transfer coefficient variation against inlet temperature for
different Reynolds numbers
Figure 13: Ratio of Nusslt number of rods with helical wires to Nusslt number of rods without helical wires against
different Reynolds number
6 CONCLUSION
Tree dimensional numerical simulation of fluid flow over fuel bundle with and without helical wire-wrapped in a
hexagonal channel is performed. The results indicate that helical wire-wrapped causes coolant rotation along the channel
which leads to more mixing and more uniform temperature distribution. Utilization of helical wire-wrapped leads to
creation of hot points in contact regions. Number and temperature of these hot points increase by increasing flow rate. For
same heat fluxes, temperature variation of water is less than that of molten sodium. Helical wire-wrapped causes rotation
of coolant along the channel which this leads to more fluid mixing and more uniform velocity distribution in channel
cross section. Helical wire-wrapped approximately doubles pressure drop and uniforms fluid velocity along the channel.
Averaged heat transfer coefficient and averaged Nusslt number increase by increasing Reynolds number and heat flux.
References
[1] R. Nijsing, W. Eifler, A computation method for the steady state thermohydraulic analysis of fuel rod bundles with
single phase cooling. Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 30, Issue 2, September 1974, Pages 145-1852-
[2] K. Arwikar, Henri Fenech, Heat transfer, momentum losses and flow mixing in a 61-tube bundle with wire-wrap.
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 55, Issue 3, December 1979, Pages 403-417
[3] E.H. Novendstern, Nucl.Eng.Des.22 (1972) 19.
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 11, November 2013 Page 398
[4] H. Fenech, Local heat transfer and hot-spot factors in wire-wrap tube bundle.Nuclear Engineering and Design,
Volume 88, Issue 3, October 1985, Pages 357-365
[5] Takeshi Shimizu, HisashiNinokata, Hajime Shishido, Distributed parameter analysis for the prediction of the fine
structure of flow and temperature fields in wire-wrapped fuel pin bundle geometries. Nuclear Engineering and
Design, Volume 120, Issues 23, 2 June 1990, Pages 369-383
[6] E.U. Schliinder et al., Heat Exchanger Design Handbook.(1983), Sec. 2.2.4, 1-17, (Hemisphere, 1983).
[7] ESDU, Data Item No. 74040 (1974), Engineering Science Data Unit.
[8] O.P. Bergelin et al., Trans. ASME 74(6) (1952) 953.
[9] J. Lafay, B. Menant and J. Barroil, Local pressure measurements and peripheral flow visualization in a water19-rod
bundle compared with FLICA IIB calculations: Influence of helical wire-wrap spacer system, ASME, 75- HT-22
(1975).
[10] R. Gajapathy, K. Velusamy, P. Selvaraj, P. Chellapandi, S.C. Chetal, CFD investigation of helical wire-wrapped 7-
pin fuel bundle and the challenges in modeling full scale 217 pin bundle. Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume
237, Issue 24, December 2007, Pages 2332-2342
[11] P. Diller, N. Todreas, P. Hejzlar, Thermal-hydraulic analysis for wire-wrapped PWR cores. Nuclear Engineering and
Design, Volume 239, Issue 8, August 2009, Pages 1461-1470
[12] K. Natesan, T. Sundararajan, ArunnNarasimhan, K. Velusamy, Turbulent flow simulation in a wire-wrap rod bundle
of an LMFBR. Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 240, Issue 5, May 2010, Pages 1063-1072
[13] Stefano Rolfo, Christophe Pniguel, MatthieuGuillaud, Dominique Laurence, Thermal-hydraulic study of a wire
spacer fuel assembly. Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 243, February 2012, Pages 251-262
AUTHOR
Mansour Talebi received the B.S., M.S. and PhD degrees in Mechanical Engineering from Isfahan University of
technology in 1992, 1994 and 2003, respectively.
.