Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GAS-COOLED REACTOR
CAVITY COOLING SYSTEM
ANGELO FRISANI,a * YASSIN A. HASSAN, a and VICTOR M. UGAZ b
a
Texas A&M University, Department of Nuclear Engineering
129 Zachry Engineering Center, College Station, Texas
b Texas A&M University, Department of Chemical Engineering
The design of passive heat removal systems is one Mesh convergence was achieved with an intensive
of the main concerns for the modular very high temper- parametric study of the two different cooling configura-
ature gas-cooled reactors (VHTR) vessel cavity. The tions and selected boundary conditions.
reactor cavity cooling system (RCCS) is a key heat re- To test the effect of turbulence modeling on the RCCS
moval system during normal and off-normal conditions. heat exchange, predictions using several different turbu-
The design and validation of the RCCS is necessary to lence models and near-wall treatments were evaluated
demonstrate that VHTRs can survive to the postulated and compared. The comparison among the different tur-
accidents. The computational fluid dynamics (CFD) bulence models analyzed showed satisfactory agreement
STAR-CCM ⫹ / V3.06.006 code was used for three- for the temperature distribution inside the RCCS cavity
dimensional system modeling and analysis of the RCCS. medium and at the standpipes walls. For such a compli-
A CFD model was developed to analyze heat ex- cated geometry and flow conditions, the tested turbu-
change in the RCCS. The model incorporates a 180-deg lence models demonstrated that the realizable k-« model
section resembling the VHTR RCCS experimentally re- with two-layer all y⫹ wall treatment performs better than
produced in a laboratory-scale test facility at Texas the other k-« and k-v turbulence models when compared
A&M University. All the key features of the experimental to the experimental results and the Reynolds stress trans-
facility were taken into account during the numerical port turbulence model results.
simulations. A scaling analysis was developed to address the dis-
The objective of the present work was to benchmark tortions introduced by the CFD model in simulating the
CFD tools against experimental data addressing the be- physical phenomena inside the RCCS system with re-
havior of the RCCS following accident conditions. Two spect to the full plant configuration. The scaling analysis
cooling fluids (i.e., water and air) were considered to test demonstrated that both the experimental facility and the
the capability of maintaining the RCCS concrete walls’ CFD model achieve a satisfactory resemblance of the
temperature below design limits. Different temperature main flow characteristics inside the RCCS cavity region,
profiles at the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) wall ob- and convection and radiation heat exchange phenomena
tained from the experimental facility were used as bound- are properly scaled from the actual plant.
ary conditions in the numerical analyses to simulate VHTR
transient evolution during accident scenarios.
*E-mail: a.frisani@neo.tamu.edu
In the 2002 Generation IV International Forum, the The reference VHTR designs are an extension of the
concept of very high temperature gas-cooled reactor earlier designs of the General Atomics gas turbine-
~VHTR! was presented as one of the next-generation modular helium reactor ~GT-MHR! and the pebble bed
nuclear power plant ~NGNP! designs. The VHTR candi- modular reactor ~PBMR!. The target VHTR differs from
dates are the prismatic and pebble-bed configurations. these designs, mainly in that the reactor outlet tempera-
Various design and analysis tools are needed to calculate ture may be higher, and the VHTR is to produce hydro-
the behavior of the NGNP under normal, off-normal, and gen in addition to electricity. Both designs are assumed
accident conditions. Thus, software tools and adequate to have confinements. The two reactor system designs
experiments for their validation or “benchmarking” should mainly differ in the core configuration, which is the pris-
be provided. matic or pebble-bed form of the reactor fuel, respectively.
For light water reactor analysis, one-dimensional tech- Both designs rely on passive cooling during any loss-
niques were usually adequate for calculating the plant of-power or loss-of-coolant scenarios. The ultimate heat
thermal-hydraulic behavior since the fluid temperatures sink is the environment, and all excess heat can be trans-
were considerably below the limits that challenge the ported to the environment without natural circulation cool-
integrity of structural materials ~e.g., the reactor pressure ing inside the vessel via heat conduction and radiation to
vessel!, even under arduous conditions. This is not the the vessel walls. From the vessel walls the heat is trans-
case for the VHTR. Bulk outlet temperature for the VHTR ported to the environment via a combination of radiation
should be .7508C ~Ref. 1!. This is one of the operating and natural circulation transport using some form of re-
requirements for generation-IV plants to be satisfied by actor cavity cooling system ~RCCS!. Air is present in the
VHTRs. confinement such that if the reactor depressurizes be-
Among all the possible design-basis accidents iden- cause of a leak in a pipe, air will ultimately enter the
tified for the VHTR, the loss of heat transport system vessel by diffusion.
and shutdown cooling system and the loss-of-coolant
accident ~LOCA! event in conjunction with water in- II.A. Reactor Cavity Cooling System
gress from failed shutdown cooling system @hereafter
referred as pressurized conduction cooldown ~PCC! sce- There is a major difference in the RCCS design be-
nario and depressurized conduction cooldown ~DCC! tween the two reference reactor configurations. The GT-
scenario, respectively# are considered the most likely to MHR design has an air-cooled RCCS, while the PBMR
lead to maximum vessel wall and fuel temperatures. design has a water-cooled RCCS. For both RCCS con-
The phenomena identification and ranking table pro- figurations, heat is radiated from the exterior of the re-
cess carefully identifies the possible scenarios and the actor vessel wall to a series of heat exchangers that are
associated phenomena.1,2 oriented vertically and arranged in a circle around the
The thermal-fluid behavior of VHTR can be ana- exterior of the reactor vessel. Water0air flowing within
lyzed with computational fluid dynamics ~CFD! codes, these heat exchangers ~ducts or standpipes! transports
system codes, and severe accident codes.3–9 Of these the heat to the exterior of the containment. The cooling
software types, CFD can be used to analyze the fluid fluid is ducted in from outside the containment to these
dynamics in any portion of NGNP. The strength of CFD heat exchangers and then outside the confinement. The
codes is their capability to analyze the presence of lo- heat exchangers can be designed with a circular or rect-
calized hot spots and thermal gradients. The largest im- angular cross section. The main objective of the stand-
pediment of using CFD codes is their computational pipes is to insure a correct cooling of the cavity system
requirements and the size of the problem that requires and to provide a barrier that separates the coolant flowing
analysis. through the heat exchangers from the atmosphere inside
The objective of the present research was to de- the reactor0silo confinement. The air-cooled RCCS sys-
velop a qualification framework for CFD codes in the tem is designed to be totally passive under all operating
nuclear system safety analysis. The CFD code selected conditions and has no blowers to power the airflow through
was the CD-ADAPCO commercial code STAR-CCM⫹0 the heat exchangers. For the water-cooled RCCS, forced
V3.06.006 ~Ref. 10!. The outcome of the present work circulation is assumed during normal operation. In case
was to identify the weakness in the code models for of accident, natural circulation in the cooling pipes is
representing thermal-hydraulic phenomena expected to assumed to maintain the concrete walls below design
occur in the VHTR during both normal operation and limits.11
accident conditions. Once the models that need to be
developed are identified, appropriate experiments can II.B. Selection of the Reference Accident Scenario
be devised to support the model development, so that
scaled representations of the full-size system can be On the basis of the experience gained by gas-cooled
rationally designed for model validation. reactor designers and experimentalists,12,13 the PCC and
DCC accident scenarios are considered the most demand- the vessel and standpipes geometry is cylindrical. In the
ing and most likely to lead to maximum vessel wall and cooldown phase, the hot plumes in the vessel head raise
fuel temperatures. the temperature of the vessel wall at the top such that the
The PCC scenario begins from a 100% power condi- vessel temperature might be the limiting condition.
tion and is initiated by a loss of forced flow and simulta- The energy conducted through the duct walls ~i.e.,
neous failure of shutdown cooling system to start. The standpipes! from the reactor cavity is convected to the
forced flow is assumed to ramp to zero in conjunction with water0air inside the duct and is also radiated by the inner
the blower coastdown characteristics. The reactor trips im- surfaces of the duct to adjacent surfaces. A buoyant head
mediately. The core heat-up slows down by the natural cir- is established inside the ducts as the water0air heated by
culation cooling developed inside the core and the increase the duct walls expands, rises, and draws coolant fluid at
of heat removal by conduction and radiation cooling to the duct inlet. The heat transfer and pressure loss phe-
the RCCS. Eventually, the core cools down when the heat nomena inside the ducts depend on the velocity profile
removal by conduction and radiation becomes larger than at the wall. If local buoyancy at the wall is introduced,
the core decay heat, and the system approaches a safe shut- then the heat transfer and pressure loss processes operate
down state. The temperatures of concern are the fuel tem- in the mixed rather than forced convection mode.
perature and that of the vessel structural components. Considering the DCC event, the air in the reactor
Consequently, two phases can be addressed: ~a! the coast- cavity before the onset of the upset will contain water
down and ~b! the heat-up and passive cooling phases. vapor. Some of this water vapor will be present in the
The DCC scenario begins from a 100% power con- mixture of gases that enter the break site during the air
dition and is initiated by a double-ended guillotine break ingress phase. In addition, during the air ingress and
of both the cold and hot ducts. After the break, the reactor natural convection phase, graphite dust may be dis-
system blows down quickly. The reactor trips immedi- charged into the reactor cavity. The dust may settle on the
ately to decrease the core power down to decay heat RCCS heat transfer surfaces in the cavity, changing their
level. Helium discharge into the reactor cavity stops when heat transfer characteristics. During the air ingress and
the pressures of the reactor system and cavity equalize. natural convection phases, some of the air in the cavity
The fuel temperature continues to increase and experi- that was not vented to the environment will move into the
ences the first peak when the core decay heat is balanced reactor vessel and oxidize graphite surfaces.
by the conduction and radiation cooling to the RCCS.
During this phase, air remaining in the reactor cavity
continuously enters into the reactor vessel by molecular III. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY
diffusion, causing extensive graphite oxidation and gen-
erating a large amount of heat, which results in a second A simple small test facility was constructed at Texas
peak in the core temperature. Graphite oxidation stops A&M University to measure the temperature distribu-
when the air in the reactor vessel is depleted, and then the tions in the RCCS cavity.14–16 The vessel was made of
fuel temperature starts to decrease. The core decay heat copper and was electrically heated via electrodes. The
is continually removed by the bulk natural circulation flange for the connection of the top and bottom parts of
cooling and by the conduction and radiation cooling to the pressure vessel was taken into account. The external
the RCCS. Eventually, the core cools down when the box ~resembling the RCCS concrete walls! was made of
heat removal by conduction and radiation cooling be- glass, and five aluminum rising pipes ~i.e., standpipes!
comes larger than the core decay heat and the core reaches were placed inside the cavity. A movable rack with ther-
a safe shutdown state. The temperatures of concern are mocouples was used for temperature measurement in-
the fuel temperature and that of the vessel structural com- side the cavity. The rack plane can be moved radially
ponents. Three phases can be identified for the DCC from the reactor pressure vessel ~RPV! wall to the gap
event: ~a! the blowdown, ~b! the molecular diffusion, and between the central standpipe and the adjacent one in
~c! the air mixture natural convection phase. such a way to have temperature measurements along
the cavity height at different distances from the RPV
II.C. Identification of the Major Phenomena for the RCCS wall, and in the gap between the standpipes. The air in
the region between the vessel and the standpipes is at
Heat removal by the RCCS during PCC event is the ambient pressure. Figure 1 shows the RCCS model of
main path for cooling the vessel. The radial temperature the experimental facility. Table I addresses the experi-
gradient developed across the core heats the vessel wall. mental facility characteristic dimensions.
The transfer of heat from the vessel wall to the air ducts is The five standpipes were realized with an internal
mainly by radiation heat transfer. Simulations with CFD tube representing the downcomer and an external tube
codes indicate that this is .80% of the total heat transfer, representing the riser. The cooling fluid ~air or water,
with convection by air in the cavity making up the bal- depending on the RCCS configuration chosen! enters the
ance.11 The view factors for the reactor vessel communi- inner tube ~i.e., the downcomer! flowing downward. Close
cating with the ducts are especially complex because both to the bottom of the cavity, two openings per standpipe
Fig. 1. Model of the Texas A&M University RCCS Experimental Facility ~dimensions in mm!.
冕
Dp gb~Tout ⫺ Tin !L r lh ]ue
⫺ ~udl !d u ⫽ St e ~use ⫺ ue ! , ~8!
]z
r0 U02 U02 0
where St e is the Stanton number at the annulus external
⫽⫺
gb~Tout ⫺ Tin !L r
U02
冕
0
lh
~udl !u
wall and is defined as
Pe h e L r heat transferred to the fluid
St e ⫽ ⫽ .
rcp U0 A ann thermal capacity of the fluid
1
⫹ ~dpf ⫹ dpl ! , ~4!
r0 U02 ~9!
where l ⫽ L0L r . If the nondimensional Richardson num- As shown in Eq. ~9!, the St number represents a nondi-
ber Ri is defined as mensional ratio between the heat transferred to the fluid
and the fluid thermal capacity.
gb~Tout ⫺ Tin !L r Using the symmetry of the RCCS cavity, it is possi-
Ri ⫽ ble to assimilate its geometry to a rectangular two-
U02
dimensional cavity with one vertical wall heated, the
other vertical wall cooled, and the two horizontal walls
g6 Dr6 L r buoyancy forces
⫽ ⫽ , ~5! insulated. The conservation of mass, momentum, and
r0 U02 inertia forces energy equations can be written as
冉 冊
⫹ ⫽0 , ~15!
]W ]W ]P ]z ]y
r W ⫹V ⫽⫺ ⫺ r0 g@1 ⫺ b~T ⫺ T0 !#
]Z ]Y ]Z
w
]w
⫹v
]w
⫽⫺
]p
⫹
Gr
u⫹
1
冉 ] 2w
⫹
] 2w
冊 ,
⫹m 冉 ] 2W
]Z 2
⫹
] 2W
]Y 2
冊 , ~11!
]z ]y ]z Re 2 Re ]z 2 ]y 2
~16!
r W 冉 ]V
]Z
⫹V
]V
]Y
冊 ⫽⫺
]P
]Y
⫹m 冉 ] 2V
]Z 2
⫹
] 2V
]Y 2 冊 ,
w
]v
]z
⫹v
]v
]y
⫽⫺
]p
]y
⫹
1
冉
Re ]z 2
] 2v
⫹
] 2v
]y 2
冊 , ~17!
and
and
~12!
w
]u
]z
⫹v
]u
]y
⫽
1
冉
Pe ]z 2
] 2u
⫹
] 2u
]y 2
冊 . ~18!
冉 冊 冉 冊
Three new nondimensional numbers are defined: Gr0
]T ]T ] 2T ] 2T Re 2 is the Grashof number divided by the square of the
rcp W ⫹V ⫽k ⫹ , ~13! Reynolds number, Re is the Reynolds number, and Pe is
]Z ]Y ]Z 2 ]Y 2
the Peclet number. The nondimensional Gr0Re 2 number
is equal to
冉 冊
where
gr 2 b~Th ⫺ Tc !H 3
P ⫽ pressure
Gr m2 gb~Th ⫺ Tc !H
冉 冊
⫽ ⫽
W, V ⫽ velocity component in the vertical and hori- Re 2 ru * H 2
u *2
zontal directions, respectively
m
m, k ⫽ air dynamic viscosity and thermal conduc-
buoyancy forces
tivity, respectively ⫽ . ~19!
inertia forces
r0 ⫽ cavity air density at the reference tempera-
The Gr0Re 2 number indicates the relevance of buoy-
ture T0 .
ancy forces respect to inertia forces, addressing the con-
The following nondimensional variables are defined as vection flow regime inside the RCCS cavity. For large
follows: Gr0Re 2 ~i.e., Gr0Re 2 .. 1!, buoyancy forces prevail over
inertial forces. This flow regime is called free convec-
Z Y W V tion. Vice versa, for small Gr0Re 2 ~i.e., Gr0Re 2 ,, 1!,
z⫽ , y⫽ , w⫽ , v⫽ , inertia forces prevail over buoyancy forces. In these con-
H H u *
u* ditions the flow regime is forced convection. If Gr0Re 2
is of the order of unity, then mixed convection is present.
P ⫹ r0 gZ T ⫺ T0 The nondimensional Re number represents the ratio
p⫽ , u⫽ , ~14! between inertia and viscous forces:
ru *2
Th ⫺ Tc
ru * H ru *2 inertia forces
Re ⫽ ⫽ ⫽ . ~20!
where m u *
viscous forces
m
Th , Tc ⫽ average temperatures of the RPV wall and H
the standpipes external wall, respectively The Pe number is defined as
H ⫽ RCCS cavity height, which is equal to the ru * H mcp rcp u * DT
Pe ⫽ Re{Pr ⫽ ⫽
reference standpipes heated length L r for m k DT
the configuration chosen k
H
u* ⫽ reference air velocity in the cavity region
heat transfer by advection
~i.e., the maximum air velocity close to the ⫽ ~21!
RPV wall was considered!. heat transfer by conduction
and represents a ratio between heat transfer by advection The total energy dissipated inside the standpipes wall
and heat transfer by conduction. Note that the definition must equal the energy removed by the cooling fluid:
of the Prandlt ~Pr ⫽ mcp 0k! number was used for the Pe
number in Eq. ~21!. Q0 ⫽ A ann U0 r0 cp ~Tout ⫺ Tin ! . ~25!
If the Re number is assumed to be unity in the cavity Using Eq. ~25! it is possible to nondimensionalize Eq. ~24!,
region, then inertia forces are of the same order of mag- from which three additional similarity groups can be
nitude of viscous forces. Under this assumption, the re- determined:
lation for the Gr number can be written as
A conv h cav
gr 2 b~Th ⫺ Tc !H 3 g6 Dr6 H g6 Dr6 H Nc ⫽ ,
冉 冊 冉 冊
Gr ⫽ ⫽ ⫽ A ann U0 r0 cp
m2 m2 m
2
{u * A rad «sTin4
rH H Nr ⫽ ,
A ann U0 r0 cp ~Tout ⫺ Tin !
buoyancy forces
⫽ . ~22! and
冉 冊
viscous forces
Tout
Equation ~22! represents the ratio of buoyancy forces Nt ⫽ ⫺1 . ~26!
Tin
over viscous forces, where buoyancy forces are the driv-
ing phenomenon and viscous forces are the dissipative The cavity convective number Nc and radiation number
phenomenon. For free convection flow regimes, the non- Nr represent the fraction of energy transferred in the cav-
dimensional Rayleigh number Ra can also be used to ity region by convection and radiation heat exchange
address the RCCS cavity convective flow regime: respect to the total energy transferred in the cavity,
冉 冊冉 冊
respectively.
gr 2 b~Th ⫺ Tc !H 3 mcp Once similarity groups are determined for the phys-
Ra ⫽ Gr{Pr ⫽ 2
{ ics of the problem under consideration, the objective of
m k
the scaling procedure is to determine the experimental
cp gr 2 b~Th ⫺ Tc !H 3 facility geometrical dimensions and working conditions
⫽ . ~23! that would give similarity groups values very close to
mk those obtained for the plant working conditions. This
means that the goal of a scaling procedure is to obtain a
Considering an energy balance equation in the RCCS unity ratio of as many similarity groups as possible be-
cavity between the RPV wall and the standpipes wall, the tween the experimental facility Pm and the real plant Pp :
two main transfer mechanisms are radiation and convec-
tion. Therefore, a simplified energy balance equation in Pm
the cavity region can be written as PR ⫽ . ~27!
Pp
Q0 ⫽ A conv h cav ~Th ⫺ Tc ! ⫹ A rad «s~Th4 ⫺ Tc4 ! , ~24! Table II shows the list of CFD simulations per-
formed, with the boundary conditions imposed. Tests 1
where through 4 refer to the water-cooled configuration, while
tests 5 through 9 address the air-cooled RCCS configu-
Q0 ⫽ energy from the RPV wall dissipated
ration. For the water-cooled RCCS configuration, the
inside the standpipes
heat source inside the RPV region was used as reference
A conv , A rad ⫽ equivalent heat transfer area by con- parameter. Table III shows the ratio of similarity groups
vection and radiation, respectively for tests 1 through 4, where the high-temperature engi-
neering test reactor was used as reference for the real
h cav ⫽ reactor cavity heat transfer coefficient plant geometry and working conditions.11 The objective
by convection of these analyses was to simulate the real plant stand-
pipes flow conditions and to study the behavior of the
Th ⫽ average temperature of the reactor ves- CFD model for convective and radiation numbers very
sel wall close to those of the real plant configuration. A very
small standpipes mass flow rate was set in such a way to
Tc ⫽ average temperature of the external
simulate the same flow regime present in the real plant
standpipes surface
standpipes ~i.e., natural circulation!. The boundary con-
s ⫽ Stefan-Boltzmann constant ditions imposed for test 4 were congruent with the bound-
ary conditions present in the experimental facility. This
« ⫽ surface emissivity. allowed a comparison of the nondimensional numbers,
Ratio of
Similarity
Groups Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
冉 ⫽
9.81{0.0023{250.0{0.29
0.35 2
冊
RiR 0.112 0.208 0.728 1.22E⫺6 a ⫽ 13.35 . ~28!
St R 12.76 12.76 12.76 5.22
~Gr0Re 2 !R 0.335 0.649 1.364 1.369 With a Gr0Re 2 number .1, buoyancy forces are larger
RaR 2.87E⫺7 5.55E⫺7 1.17E⫺6 1.17E⫺6 than inertia forces and free convection is present in the
NcR 2.916 1.458 0.262 0.158 RCCS cavity region.
NrR 1.690 1.058 0.302 0.245 The Ra number for the experimental facility is six
Nt R 0.190 0.353 1.234 0.016 orders of magnitude smaller than the Ra number in the
real plant. This difference is due to the different heated
a
Read as 1.22 ⫻ 10⫺6. length for the mock-up and the real plant. The experi-
mental facility0CFD model have a heated length two
orders of magnitude smaller than the real plant heated
addressing the main distortions introduced by the CFD length. As shown in Eq. ~23!, the ratio of Ra number is
model with respect to the mock-up and a benchmark of proportional to the third power of the heated length ratio
the CFD code with respect to the experimental data @i.e., ~Hm 0Hp ! 3 ⫽ ~10100!⫺3 ⫽10⫺6 #. Since the Ra num-
available. ber can be seen as a ratio between buoyancy forces and
With the low values of standpipes mass flow rate viscous forces, the conclusion is that the buoyancy forces
imposed as boundary condition for tests 1, 2, and 3, the that drive the flow inside the CFD model cavity are much
CFD simulations introduce a limited distortion on the smaller than those present in the real plant cavity region.
scaling of the buoyancy forces with respect to the inertia Figure 2 shows the ratio of convective Nc and radi-
forces, which means that the ratio of Ri number between ation Nr numbers, which addresses the distortion intro-
the experimental facility0CFD model and the real plant duced by the scaling on the heat transfer by convection
is close to unity, as addressed in Table III. The experi- and radiation in the RCCS cavity region, respectively.
ment for the water-cooled RCCS configuration ~i.e., test For the boundary conditions chosen for tests 1 through 4,
4! was performed under forced circulation standpipes both ratios are close to unity, which means that the scaled
conditions, and the contribution of buoyancy in the mo- model does not introduce a relevant distortion with re-
mentum equation can be neglected ~i.e., the ratio of Ri spect to the real plant in scaling convection and radiation
number is much smaller than 1!. heat transfer phenomena inside the cavity region.
As addressed before, the St number measures the CFD analyses were performed with air as cooling
ratio of heat transferred to the fluid respect to the fluid fluid in the RCCS standpipes ~tests 5 through 9!. The
thermal capacity. For the boundary conditions imposed objective of the CFD analyses performed was to have a
TABLE IV
Ratio of Similarity Groups for Tests 5 Through 9
Ratio of
Similarity
Groups Test 5 Test 6 Test 7 Test 8 Test 9
Fig. 6. Mesh sensitivity for the cavity region axial temperature distribution 5.0 mm from the RPV wall ~rack plane!—test 1.
extensive analysis of temperature and velocity distribu- reached for test 1 and test 2 ~320 and 325 K, respec-
tions was carried out in the RCCS cavity region. This tively!. This temperature is still well below the design
criterion was used to judge mesh convergence for the limits for the cavity concrete walls. It is possible to con-
analyses performed. The figure shows that there are some clude that for the very high RPV temperature conditions
discrepancies in the temperature profiles between the dif- reached in test 3, the water-cooled RCCS system is still
ferent meshes, with the finer meshes predicting higher capable of keeping the RCCS external walls temperature
temperature distribution inside the cavity region. The below design limits.
differences in temperature distributions were expected In Fig. 9 the velocity vector distribution in the RCCS
because of the different mesh refinements necessary to cavity region at the rack plane location for test 3 is shown.
calculate the heat exchange at the interfaces between The velocity vector plot shows the main recirculation
fluid and solid regions ~i.e., where conjugate heat trans- region in the upper half of the RCCS cavity region be-
fer is present!. Figure 6 also shows a local maximum in tween the RPV wall and the standpipes wall. In addition,
the air temperature in proximity of the RPV flange. The the stagnant region below the RPV lower head and the
flange represents an obstruction for the thermal bound- secondary recirculation region above the RPV upper head
ary layer developing along the RPV wall, and a local can be identified.
minimum in the axial velocity is present close to the RPV Figure 10 shows the axial velocity distribution in
wall at the flange location. This explains why the air the radial direction at the cavity region symmetry
temperature shows a local maximum close to the flange. plane 215 mm from the bottom wall for test 3. The
The air temperature progressively increases from the figure shows the effect of buoyancy forces on the ve-
RCCS bottom wall toward the upper part of the cavity as locity distribution close to the RPV wall. The finer
the air becomes lighter and cools down the RPV wall. meshes predict with greater accuracy the temperature
The maximum air temperature is reached in the upper gradient across the thermal boundary layer, which means
part of the cavity. a better estimate of the buoyancy forces can be deter-
Figure 7 shows the radial temperature distribution at mined. Since buoyancy forces are the driving phenom-
the cavity region symmetry plane 275 mm from the bot- ena in free convection flow regime, a better estimate of
tom wall for test 2. In the upper part of the RCCS cavity the velocity profile close to the RPV wall is obtained
region, the effect of mesh refinement on the temperature for the finer meshes.
distribution is even more evident, with a difference of Figures 11 and 12 show the axial temperature distri-
;40 K among the different meshes analyzed and the finer bution at the cavity region rack plane 0.25 mm from the
meshes predicting higher temperature distributions across RPV wall and at the cavity back wall, respectively ~test
the cavity region. 3!. The figures show the comparison between the differ-
Figure 8 shows the axial temperature distribution at ent turbulence models analyzed. In particular, for test 3
the cavity back wall ~rack plane location! for test 3. For the following turbulence models were tested: the realiz-
this analysis the back wall temperature does not exceed able k-« model with two-layer all y ⫹ wall treatment, the
340 K, which is slightly larger than the maximum values AKN k-« model with low Reynolds number and all y ⫹
Fig. 7. Mesh sensitivity for the cavity region radial temperature distribution 275 mm from the bottom wall ~symmetry plane!—
test 2.
Fig. 8. Mesh sensitivity for the cavity region back wall axial temperature distribution ~rack plane!—test 3.
wall treatment, the SST k-v model with all y ⫹ wall treat- equation model show some differences with respect to
ment, the RST with two-layer all y ⫹ wall treatment, the the RST in the central part of the RCCS region. This
Spalart-Allmaras one-equation model with all y ⫹ wall different behavior of the AKN, k-v, and Spalart-Allmaras
treatment, and the standard k-« model with two-layer all models is due to the different predictions in the extension
y ⫹ wall treatment. For the temperature distribution a good of the main recirculation region inside the cavity me-
agreement between the different turbulence models was dium. As the comparison among the different turbulence
achieved. The standard and realizable k-« models gave models for the axial velocity distribution in the cavity
very close temperature distribution prediction, and both region shows ~see Figs. 13 and 14!, there are some dif-
models gave a qualitative and quantitative good agree- ferences at the bottom part of the cavity region where
ment with the RST turbulence model. The AKN k-« model, the air moving downward is redirected toward the RPV
the SST k-v model, and the Spalart-Allmaras one- wall. At the cavity back wall ~see Fig. 12! there is good
Fig. 10. Mesh sensitivity for the cavity region axial velocity 215 mm from the bottom wall ~symmetry plane!—test 3.
Fig. 11. Turbulence models comparison for the cavity region axial temperature distribution 0.25 mm from the RPV wall ~rack
plane!—test 3.
Fig. 12. Turbulence models comparison for the cavity region back wall axial temperature distribution ~rack plane!—test 3.
temperature gradient across the cavity ~i.e., RPV to conclude that the scaling distortion introduced by the
temperature!. CFD model on radiation and convection heat transfer is
For this analysis the ratio of Ri number is very close of the same order, and therefore, the two heat transfer
to 1 ~see Table III!, which means that the momentum phenomena are properly scaled by the CFD model.
equation in the standpipes is properly scaled from the Figures 15 through 18 show the experimental results
prototype down to the model. Also, the ratio of Gr0Re 2 in for the axial temperature distribution inside the RCCS
the cavity region is very close to 1, which means the cavity ~rack plane location! at 0.25, 25.4, 38.1, and
effect of buoyancy forces over inertia forces is not dis- 50.8 mm from the reactor vessel wall, respectively. The
torted, and the physics inside the cavity region is well figures also show the temperature distribution deter-
represented. mined by the STRAR-CCM⫹ code for the different tur-
Since the effect from radiation and convection heat bulence models analyzed ~test 4!. The figures show that
transfer numerically determined is in good agreement the computational results are close to the experimental
with that calculated by the scaling analysis, it is possible data, especially in the upper part of the RCCS cavity
Fig. 13. Turbulence models comparison for the cavity region axial velocity distribution 135 mm from the bottom wall ~symmetry
plane!—test 3.
Fig. 14. Turbulence models comparison for cavity region axial velocity distribution 275 mm from the bottom wall ~symmetry
plane!—test 3.
region. Some differences between the experimental data the CFD model, the air temperature in the lower part of
and the numerical results were present in the lower part the mock-up cavity region is higher than the air temper-
of the RCCS cavity region. These discrepancies between ature in the CFD model cavity region. Notwithstanding
computational and experimental results were due to the the differences between the CFD numerical simulations
bottom part of the RCCS cavity wall. In the experimental and the experimental data, it is possible to say that the
facility the bottom cavity wall was partially made of numerical results show a good qualitative agreement with
aluminum, while glass was assumed for the CFD model. the experimental data.
The aluminum in the mock-up determined a higher tem- Considering the sensitivity analysis over the differ-
perature for the lower part of the RCCS cavity due to ent turbulence models analyzed, the figures show that all
radiation heat exchange between the RPV wall and the turbulence models can qualitatively predict the correct
external box ~i.e., back radiation from the bottom wall in temperature distribution inside the RCCS cavity, with
the cavity region!. This behavior is not shown in the CFD relatively small differences among the models analyzed.
simulations, since the bottom wall is at a lower temper- In general, it is possible to say that the k-« models per-
ature than the air in the RCCS cavity region. Because of formed better than the k-v models, if compared to both
this discrepancy between the experimental facility and the experimental data and the RST results. Among the
Fig. 15. Cavity region axial temperature distribution 0.25 mm from the RPV wall ~rack plane!—test 4.
Fig. 16. Cavity region axial temperature distribution 25.4 mm from the RPV wall ~rack plane!—test 4.
k-« turbulence models analyzed, the ones using the two- shape of the temperature distribution in the upper part of
layer approach performed better than the turbulence the cavity is due to the presence of the main recirculation
models using the low–Reynolds number approach. For region, which moves colder air toward the upper part of
the treatment of the wall region, the all y ⫹ methodology the cavity region.
resulted in a better convergence if compared to the low The temperature trend shown in Figs. 16, 17, and
y ⫹ approach. 18 is similar to the one close to the RPV wall, with
The realizable k-« turbulence model performed bet- a smoother temperature gradient across the cavity
ter than the standard and the AKN k-« models. height. Also, the temperature measurements close to
In Fig. 15 it is possible to note the sharp air temper- the central standpipe ~i.e., Figs. 17 and 18! show that
ature increase in proximity of the RPV bottom head ~i.e., the air temperature in the bottom part of the cavity
;0.06 m from the cavity bottom wall!. The figure also region is almost constant. This addresses the fact that
shows the increase of air temperature along the RPV wall the bottom part of the cavity region is almost at stag-
~i.e., buoyancy forces drive the air upward! and the sharp nant conditions, with the recirculation region due to
increase in the air temperature close to the RPV flange buoyancy effects developing in the upper part of the
~i.e., ;0.21 m from the cavity bottom wall!. The concave cavity.
Fig. 17. Cavity region axial temperature distribution 38.1 mm from the RPV wall ~rack plane!—test 4.
Fig. 18. Cavity region axial temperature distribution 50.8 mm from the RPV wall ~rack plane!—test 4.
For the boundary conditions set in test 4, the CFD heat source imposed inside the RPV region as boundary
simulation determined values of 54% and 46% from ra- condition ~see tests 1, 2, and 3!, an almost uniform
diation and convection heat transfer, respectively. The temperature distribution is obtained at the RPV wall
respective values determined by the scaling analysis were due to the very high thermal conductivity of the mate-
60.8% and 39.2%, with an error equal to 11.2%. rial chosen for the RPV ~i.e., Cu!. On the other hand,
the power generated inside the RPV does not have a
VI.B. Analysis of the RCCS Air-Cooled Configuration uniform distribution during either normal operation or
~Tests 5 Through 9! accident conditions. With the reactor in shutdown con-
ditions ~e.g, following a scram due to an accident sce-
Tests 5 through 9 consider the RCCS in the air- nario!, the largest part of energy generated inside the
cooled configuration, where air is flowing inside the RPV is due to the decay heat of the reactor core. Other
standpipes. A constant mass flow rate was imposed at sources of heat are the thermal energy stored inside the
the standpipe inlets, while different temperature pro- reactor vessel internals and the g heating on the RPV
files were set at the RPV wall boundary in such a way walls and other metallic components close to the core
to simulate a range of working conditions for the RPV region. It is very difficult to make an exact prediction
wall and for the RCCS cavity region. With a uniform of the energy distribution inside the RPV and the heat
Fig. 19. Mesh sensitivity for the cavity region axial velocity distribution 275 mm from the bottom wall ~symmetry plane!—test 8.
flux at the RPV wall. From experimental data,11 it was plane 275 mm from the bottom wall ~i.e., above the
possible to have a rough estimate of the heat fluxes at RPV upper head! for test 8. The mesh sensitivity shows
the RPV wall during the different phases of PCC and that also for the air-cooled configuration, there are some
DCC scenarios, which give temperature distributions differences in the extension of the main and secondary
qualitatively similar to those used for tests 4 through 8. recirculation regions in the cavity above the RPV upper
The objective of these analyses was to test the perfor- head ~i.e., the location of the separation and reattach-
mance of the RCCS air-cooled configuration, imposing ment points on the RPV upper head!, which address
temperature profiles at the RPV wall that take into ac- mesh convergence issues.
count the nonuniform distribution of heat generated in- The axial temperature distribution at the cavity back
side the vessel and address the behavior of the RCCS wall rack plane location is shown in Fig. 20. In general
system for the boundary conditions set. for the air-cooled RCCS configuration, coarser meshes
Figure 19 shows the axial velocity distribution in predict higher air temperature distribution across the cav-
the radial direction at the cavity region symmetry ity region, if compared to finer meshes for the cases
Fig. 20. Mesh sensitivity of the cavity region back wall axial temperature distribution ~rack plane!—test 8.
analyzed. Also for test 8, the mesh sensitivity analysis reached for test 4 ~;350 K!. These results demonstrate
shows that the coarsest mesh predicts a higher tempera- the better performance of the water-cooled RCCS con-
ture distribution on the cavity back wall with respect to figuration with respect to the air-cooled one.
the finer meshes. The maximum temperature is reached Considering the results obtained for the RCCS air-
close to the cavity top wall. The figure shows that the cooled configuration, for tests 5, 6, and 7, the maximum
maximum temperature ranges from 370 to 390 K, which concrete wall temperature is below the design limits,
is the temperature for which the concrete material starts while for test 8 it is very close to the design limits. With
to show an increase in the rate of properties deterioration. the boundary conditions set for test 9, the maximum tem-
Figure 21 compares the temperature distribution at perature at the cavity walls is above the design limits.
the cavity back wall ~rack plane location! for tests 1 The CFD simulations with the boundary conditions
through 9. For tests 1, 2, and 3, a uniform volumetric heat set for test 9 predicted 87.8% and 12.2% heat transfer due
source inside the RPV region was imposed, for a total to radiation and convection phenomena, respectively. The
power generated equal to 27.0, 50.0, and 170.0 W, re- scaling analysis predicted 83.7% and 16.3% for radiation
spectively. The cooling fluid in the standpipes was water and convection heat transfer, respectively, with an error
~see Sec. VI.A!. Test 4 resembled the boundary condi- rate ,4.7%.
tions imposed in the experimental facility. The total en- For this analysis the ratio of Gr0Re 2 is 1.044, which
ergy generated inside the RPV region equals 196 W. For means no distortion is introduced in scaling buoyancy
tests 5 through 9 the same standpipes air mass flow rate over inertia forces from the real plant down to the CFD
was imposed. On the other hand, the different tempera- model. In addition, the ratios of convection and radia-
ture profiles imposed at the RPV wall for tests 5 through tion numbers are close to unity, which means that the
9 determined a different amount of energy generated physics inside the RCCS cavity is well scaled by the
inside the RPV region: 23.4, 43.16, 65.5, 104.2, and CFD model.
131.0 W, respectively. Figure 21 shows that the maxi-
mum temperature is reached close to the cavity top wall
for all analyses. The air-cooled configurations give a higher VII. CONCLUSION
air temperature distribution inside the RCCS cavity re-
gion and at the cavity walls with respect to the water- The objective of the present work was to apply CFD
cooled configurations. Comparing test 4 ~water-cooled tools to the analysis of the RCCS, which is one of the
configuration with 196 W RPV total power generated! safety systems designed for VHTRs.
with test 9 ~air-cooled configuration with 130 W RPV The scaling analysis performed pointed out that
total power generated!, it is evident that even with 30% the mock-up0CFD model well addresses the physics
less power generated, the air-cooled configuration gives inside the RCCS cavity region for a wide range of op-
a maximum temperature on the cavity walls of ;395 K, erating conditions and both water-cooled and air-cooled
almost 45 K higher than the maximum temperature RCCS configurations. Buoyancy over inertia forces
Fig. 21. Comparison of the cavity region back wall axial temperature distribution ~rack plane!—tests 1 through 9.
~RCCS! for a Very High Temperature Reactor ~VHTR!,” Proc. tion,” NASA TM 106721, National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
18th Int. Conf. Nuclear Engineering, Xi’an, China, May 17– ministration ~1997!; http:00ntrs.nasa.gov0 ~current as of May
21, 2010, American Society of Mechanical Engineers ~2010!. 25, 2010!.
15. A. FRISANI, L. CAPONE, V. M. UGAZ, and Y. A. HAS- 22. K. ABE, T. KONDOH, and Y. NAGANO, “A New Turbu-
SAN, “Three Dimensional Simulation of RCCS Heat Ex- lence Model for Predicting Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in
change Using STAR-CCM⫹ CFD Code,” Trans. Am. Nucl. Separating and Reattaching Flows—1. Flow Field Calcula-
Soc., 100, 685 ~2009!. tion,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 37, 1 ~1991!.
16. A. FRISANI, V. UGAZ, and Y. A. HASSAN, “On the
Effect of Turbulence Modeling and Near-Wall Treatment in 23. D. C. WILCOX, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 2nd ed.,
Simulating Heat Exchange in the Reactor Cavity Cooling Sys- DCW Industries, Inc. ~1998!.
tem Using STAR-CCM⫹ CFD Code,” Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc.,
101, 881 ~2009!. 24. F. R. MENTER, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbu-
lence Modeling for Engineering Applications,” IAAA J., 3, 8,
17. R. B. VILIM and E. E. FELDMAN, “Scalability of the 1598 ~1994!.
Natural Convection Shutdown Heat Removal Test Facility
~NSTF! Data to VHTR0NGNP RCCS Designs,” ANL-GenIV-
25. M. M. GIBSON and B. E. LAUNDER, “Ground Effects on
049, Argonne National Laboratory ~June 2005!.
Pressure Fluctuations in Atmospheric Boundary Layer,” J. Fluid
18. F. S. LIEN, W. L. CHEN, and M. A. LESCHZINER, “Low- Mech., 86, 3, 491 ~1978!.
Reynolds Number Eddy-Viscosity Modeling Based on Non-
Linear Stress-Strain 0Vorticity Relations, Proc. 3rd Symp. 26. S. SARKAR and L. BALAKRISHNAN, “Application of a
Engineering Turbulence Modeling and Measurement, Crete, Reynolds-Stress Turbulence Model to the Compressible Shear
Greece, May 27–29, 1996. Layer,” ICASE Report 90-18, NASA CR 182002, Institute for
Computer Applications in Science and Engineering ~1990!.
19. W. P. JONES and B. E. LAUNDER, “The Prediction of
Laminarization with a Two-Equation Model of Turbulence,” 27. C. G. SPEZIALE, S. SARKAR, and T. B. GATSKI, “Mod-
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 15, 301 ~1972!. eling the Pressure-Strain Correlation of Turbulence: An Invari-
20. B. E. LAUNDER and B. I. SHARMA, “Application of ant Dynamical Systems Approach,” J. Fluid Mech., 227, 245
Energy Dissipation Model of Turbulence to the Calculation of ~1991!.
Flow Near a Spinning Disc,” Lett. Heat Mass Transfer, 1, 2,
131 ~1974!. 28. P. R. SPALART and S. R. ALLMARAS, “A One-Equation
Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows,” Proc. 30th Aero-
21. T. H. SHIH, W. W. LIOU, A. SHABBIR, Z. YANG, and J. space Sciences Mtg., Reno, Nevada, January 6–9, 1992, AIAA-
ZHU, “A New k-« Eddy Viscosity Model for High Reynolds 92-03439, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Number Turbulent Flows—Model Development and Valida- ~1992!.