Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

CFD analysis of thermal stratification and sensitivity study of model parameters

for k–ε model in a cylindrical hot plenum
Shyam S. Das a , Akshaya K. Sahu a,∗ , G. Padmakumar b , Arijit A. Ganguli a
a
Department of Mathematics, Institute of Chemical Technology, Matunga, Mumbai 400019, Maharashtra, India
b
Experimental Thermal Hydraulics Section, Separation Technology and Hydraulics Division, Fast Reactor Technology Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam
603102, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A sensitivity analysis of various numerical parameters on the prediction of thermal stratification in a
Received 18 December 2011 2D axi-symmetric domain has been carried out by using commercial code FLUENT 6.3. The analysis is
Received in revised form 5 April 2012 carried out for both steady and unsteady flow conditions. The Reynolds number in all the cases has been
Accepted 11 April 2012
considered as Re = 19,200. The effect of under relaxation parameters, numerical schemes on convergence
while solving mass, momentum and turbulence equations was first studied for steady state conditions.
An optimal range for under relaxation parameters was found which ensures the stability of the numerical
solutions and ensures faster convergence. Further, 1st order upwind scheme for convective terms of tur-
bulent equations (k and ε) is found to give a better convergence in comparison with higher order schemes.
The study was then extended to transient flow conditions and the stratification characteristics like rising
of the stratification interface was studied. The turbulence model parameters of the standard k–ε model
were changed and predictions were observed. It is observed that the values used for turbulence model
parameters (C , C1 , C2 ) while solving the standard k–ε model for studying stratification characteristics are
different than the model values used in k–ε equation. In the lower part of reactor vessel, k–ε model with
standard value of model parameters have a very good agreement with the experimental observations of
Moriya et al. (1987) while in the upper part the model parameters take different values than the standard
values.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction understand the characteristics of thermal stratification for thermal

Energy is one of the most important needs for growth and pros-
perity of the modern world. The various sources of energy can be
non-renewable (coal, natural gases and petroleum) and renewable
sources of energy (biomass, solar, wind, etc.). In the recent years,
nuclear energy has emerged as a vital source of energy especially in
developing countries like India. Various designs of nuclear reactors
(boiling water reactors (BWR), pressurized water reactors (PWR),
pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWR), liquid metal fast breeder
reactors (LMFBR), etc. are being developed and implemented for the
power generation across the world. Researchers have developed
their interest in design of LMFBR’s. Since, they have capability of
high power generation with less amount of fuel as compared to
other nuclear reactors.
One important problems arising in LMFBR, is the generation of
axial temperature gradient (thermal stratification) in the hot pool
during the reactor shutdown conditions. It is extremely essential to
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 3361 1111/2222; fax: +91 22 24145614.
E-mail address: ak.sahu@ictmumbai.edu.in (A.K. Sahu).
hydraulic design (Laxman et al., 2006) of the reactor. Fig. 1 shows
the schematic diagram of typical LMFBR. During, normal operating
conditions of the reactor, the coolant is pumped to the active core. A
large amount of heat is generated in the core due to nuclear fission
reaction. The coolant takes up the heat from the active core (4 in
Fig. 1) and enters the reactor vessel. The flow of the hot coolant con-
tinues till the reactor vessel is fully filled with coolant. The hot fluid
then flows towards the upper part of the reactor vessel and enters
into the window of intermediate heat exchangers (IHX) (7 in Fig. 1)
which is located in the upper part of the reactor. Inside IHX, there
are a large amount of tubes of stainless steel which contains water.
After giving heat to the water, the hot coolant loses its temperature
and become denser. Due to density, the cold coolant starts flowing
toward the bottom part of the reactor vessel. Then, the cold coolant
comes out of window of IHX which is located in the lower part of the
reactor vessel (5 as in Fig. 1). This divides the entire reactor vessel
into two parts: (i) hot pool (2 as in Fig. 1), (ii) cold pool (6 as in Fig. 1).
After, reactor shut down condition is initiated, the power of reactor
decreases rapidly and the coolant flow rate is also reduced. The rate
of power decrease is faster than the decrease of the flow rate of the
coolant. So the coolant temperature drops quickly with time. The

0029-5493/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2012.04.008
418 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435

Nomenclature
k turbulent Prandtl number for turbulent kinetic
C1 constant for k–ε model energy
C2 constant for k–ε model ε turbulent Prandtl number for turbulent energy dis-
C constant for k–ε model sipation rate
CP specific heat at constant pressure (J/kg K) T turbulent Prandtl number for energy
D diameter of the inlet of the cylindrical hot plenum
(m)
g acceleration due to gravity (m/s2 ) cold coolant from the reactor core enters the lower region of the hot
G production term for turbulent kinetic energy upper plenum slowly due to density difference, and a large portion
H total water height (m) of the coolant in the upper plenum remains hot. This phenomenon
I turbulent intensity yields thermal stratified condition and produces stiff temperature
k turbulent kinetic energy (m2 /s2 ) gradient in the axial direction. This temperature gradient at the
K coefficient of thermal conductivity (W/mK) stratification interface is very stiff which causes severe thermal
L characteristic length (m) stresses to the inner vessel and other immersed components. More-
Niter number of iterations for convergence over, the sloshing of thermal interface can lead to thermal fatigue. It
p pressure (N/m2)  causes thermal stresses and thermal fatigue to the immersed com-
Pe Peclet number LU ˛ ponents in the LMFBR’s. The understanding of the hydrodynamics
Pe* non dimensionalPeclet  number and heat transfer during thermal stratification is extremely impor-
Cp
Pr Prandtl number K tant for better design of LMFBR’s, due to difficulties involved to
carry out the experiments in LMFBR. Alternatively, CFD is a pow-
r  
radial coordinate (m)
Re Reynolds number UD erful tool for analyzing flow pattern and temperature distribution


 c −h  inside the fast breeder reactor’s (FBR). Further, the experimentation
gˇD
Ri Richardson number c of characteristics like the rising speed of the stratification interface
U2
S˚ source term for general scalar variable (˚) as well as the stratification height in actual conditions in full scaled
Su source term for radial velocity FBR’s is experimentally very challenging. With a good CFD model it
Sv source term for axial velocity is possible to accurately predict these characteristics in a full scale
ST source term for temperature version of FBR’s.
Sk source term for turbulent kinetic energy Fig. 2 depicts the schematic diagram of the test section of
Sε source term for turbulent energy dissipation rate experimental set-up (Moriya et al., 1987). This set-up is a simple
t time (s) representation of LMFBR. Initially, the hot water is injected to the
t* non-dimensional time reactor vessel through the core outlet (1 in Fig. 2). Similar to the
T temperature (K) description above, to obtain a thermally stratified condition, the
Tc temperature of the cold fluid (K) cold water is injected into the domain. Since, the density of cold
Th temperature of the hot fluid (K) fluid is larger than the hot fluid it tries to settle down at the lower
T0 reference temperature (K) part of the system. This yields a steep temperature gradient in axial
T* non-dimensional temperature direction in the reactor vessel. As a result a hot-cold interface was
u radial velocity (m/s) formed.
U characteristic velocity (m/s)
v axial velocity (m/s)
V resultant velocity (m/s)
z axial coordinate (m)
1
z* non-dimensional axial coordinate 7
9
Greek letters
eff effective diffusivity (m2 /s)
˛ thermal diffusivity (m2 /s)
˛k under relaxation parameter for turbulent kinetic 2
8
energy
˛p under relaxation parameter for pressure 3
˛u under relaxation parameter for velocities 6
˛ε under relaxation parameter for turbulent energy
dissipation rate 5
ˇ thermal expansion coefficient (K−1 )
ε turbulent energy dissipation rate (m2 /s3 )
 generalized notation for transport variable
 molecular viscosity (kg/ms)
t eddy viscosity (kg/ms)
t kinematic eddy viscosity (m2 /s)
 density of the fluid (kg/m3 )
0 reference density of the fluid (kg/m3 ) 4
c density of the cold fluid (kg/m3 ) Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of LMFBR. (1) Control plug, (2) hot pool, (3) pump, (4)
h density of the hot fluid (kg/m3 ) active core, (5) IHX window at the bottom part of the reactor vessel, (6) cold pool,
(7) IHX window at the upper part of the reactor vessel, (8) the flow into the reactor
vessel, (9) the flow into the IHX window.
 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435 419

Maekawa, 1990; Ieda et al., 1990; Muramatsu and Ninokata, 1994;

Khimura et al., 1999; Choi and Kim, 2006) have carried out on
thermal stratification. For the prediction of stratification charac-
teristics the role of the numerical schemes used for solving the
discretized numerical equations is extremely important (Maekawa,
1990; Muramatsu and Ninokata, 1994; Choi and Kim, 2006). In the
next sub-section we present a review of some of the most impor-
tant experimental and numerical works in the study of thermal
stratification.

1.1. Previous work

The quest to understand thermal stratification (both experimen-

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the experimental test section (Moriya et al., 1987). (1)
Inlet, (2) water level, (3) UIS, (4) IHX intake, (5) inner cylinder, (6) outlet nozzle.
Several experimental studies (Lorenz et al., 1977; Aoki and
Okada, 1982; Tanaka et al., 1984; Moriya et al., 1987; Vidil et al.,
1988; Ieda et al., 1990; Khimura et al., 1999; Laxman et al., 2006)
and numerical studies (Tanaka et al., 1984; Mausi et al., 1987;
tal and numerical studies) was ongoing since 1977 (Lorenz et al.,
1977). Tables 1A–1D and Tables 2A and 2B give the summary of
previous experimental and numerical works with the important
assumptions made by different researchers their limitations and
conclusions drawn from the analysis of various authors. Substan-
tial amount of experimental studies were carried out by various
researchers in last three decades (Table 1A). While, a small amount
of numerical studies were carried out (Table 2A). In the present sec-
tion, some of the important contributions in numerical studies of
thermal stratification by various investigators were reported. Some
authors (Sahu and Joshi, 1995; Barron and Neyshabouri, 2003) have
studied the effects of under relaxation parameters on the turbu-
lent flow for different geometries. They observed that the along
with the under relaxation parameter for pressure, velocities, the
under relaxation parameters for turbulent quantities like k and ε
are also vital to obtain a converged solution. They reported that the
optimum convergence can be achieved by using ˛p = 0.6, ˛u = 0.4,

Table 1A
Details of the various range and proposed correlations available in the literatures.

Authors Fluid T, temperature Non-dimensional parameters and their range Proposed correlation
difference in ◦ C of v* with Ri

Re Ri Pe Pr

Lorenz et al. (1977) Water 58.8 Re* Ri* Pe* –

0.0058 1.18 6.5
35.5 0.0048 0.92 5.45
Sodium 67.8 0.0120 0.99 0.012 –
62.8 0.0084 1.34 0.0084

Aoki and Okada (1982) Water 26 7500 12.5 47500 6.33 –

Sodium 42 15,600 12.5 101 0.0066 –

Tanaka et al. (1984) Water 51 1E+05 0–2.4 – –

Moriya et al. (1987) Water A1 14.2 6700 3.8 – – V* = 1.12 × 1E−03 ×

Riˆ(−0.48)
A2 15.1 8300 4.1
A3 23.3 9900 3.8
A4 34.2 13,300 4.1
A5 42.1 17,800 3.5
A6 51.7 19,200 3.7
B1 20.7 25,600 0.5
B2 21.5 18,500 1.1
B3 21.6 12,700 2.0
B4 34.2 13,300 4.1
B5 44.0 13,200 4.7
B6 44.0 12,500 6.3
B7 49.5 12,700 8.3
B8 52.3 9900 13.8

Vidil et al. (1988) Sodium 20–50 – 0.1–3 4E+03 to 4E+04 – –

Tanaka et al. (1990) Water – 1E+03 to 1E+05 0.01–1 – – –

Sodium – 1E+03 to 1E+05 0.01–100 –

Ieda et al. (1990) Sodium – 1E+03 to 1E+06 1E+02 to 1E +06 – – –

Ravichandran et al. (1995) Water – – – – – V* = 1.5 ×

1E−03(Ri)ˆ(−0.8)

Khimura et al. (1999) Sodium 24–150 12E+03 to 25E+03 3.4E+03 to 2.2E+04 – –

420 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435

Table 1B
Measurement procedure of temperatures for thermal stratification as studied in literature.

Authors Experimental technique Objective of the research Work

Measurement Equipment for measurement

Lorenz et al. (1977) Temperature Thermocouples Study the influence of scale size and fluid thermal properties
Aoki and Okada (1982) Temperature Thermocouples Calculate the velocity of thermal stratification interface
Tanaka et al. (1984) Visualization of the Dye injection Study the effect of elevation of upper international structure (UIS) and
flow field Thermocouples intermediate heat exchanger intake (IHX) on thermal stratification
Temperature
Moriya et al. (1987) Visualization of the Aluminium powder as a tracer Study the effect of Reynolds number and Richardson number on
flow field Thermocouples thermal stratification
Temperature
Vidil et al. (1988) Temperature Thermocouples Studied the basic mechanism which create and maintain thermal
stratification
Tanaka et al. (1990) Temperature Thermocouples Studied the applicability of small scale water test to predict thermal
stratification
Ieda et al. (1990) Temperature Thermocouples of 1 mm diameter. Examination of threshold of thermal stratification and rising rate of
stratification interface
Ravichandran et al. (1995) Temperature Thermocouples of 0.5 mm diameter Studied the effect of Reynolds number and Richardson number on
thermal stratification in scaled down model of fast breeder reactor
Khimura et al. (1999) Temperature Thermocouples of 1 mm diameter Examined the effect of Re, Ri and Gr on thermal stratification

Table 1C
Details of various geometry for thermal stratification studies in previous literatures.

Authors Experimental set up Diameter of Diameter of the Diameter of upper Elevation of UIS Elevation of IHX
cylindrical plenum core outlet internal structure from core outlet intake (m)/aspect
(m)/width of cavity (m)/height of (UIS) (m)/Depth of (m)/height of ratio (AR)
cavity cavity channel (m)

Lorenz et al. (1977) 1/15th scale model of liquid metal 0.4 0.08 – – –
fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) 0.4 0.2
Aoki and Okada 1/10th scale of full scale model
(1982)
Tanaka et al. (1984) Simplified model of the reactor 0.8 0.2 0.2 Three different Three different
position have been position have been
taken to study its taken to study its
effect on thermal effect on thermal
stratification stratification

Moriya et al. (1987) Simplified model of the reactor 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.2

Tanaka et al. (1990) Simplified model of the reactor 0.6 0.069 0.069 0.05 0.2
1/8th model of full scale reactor 2.2 0.434 0.5 0.1 0.56

Ieda et al. (1990) 1/10th scale model of full scale 0.65 0.1652 0.1652 – 0.682
reactor
Ravichandran et al. 1/24th scale down model of fast
(1995) breeder reactor
Khimura et al. Simplified model of the reactor 1.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.1
(1999)
Vidil et al. (1988) Rectangular cavity with a 1.6 3.2 0.8 0.03 2
rectangular channel at the bottom
of the cavity

˛k = 1, ˛ε = 0.25. One of the earlier numerical studies on thermal the oscillatory behaviour of stratification interface and temper-
stratification was carried out by Tanaka et al. (1984). He carried ature fluctuations inside the reactor. The algebraic stress model
out CFD simulation by developing a 2D in-house code. The pre- (ASM) (Rodi, 1980; Deumaran and Rodi, 1980; Noat and Rodi, 1982.)
dicted result agreed well with the experimental observation. But, model has been used with higher order schemes for thermal strati-
in case of higher discharge of upper internal structure (UIS), the fication analysis by some researchers (Ieda et al., 1990; Muramatsu
predicted result disagreed with the experimental observation. He and Ninokata, 1994; Khimura et al., 1999). Ieda et al. (1990) stud-
observed that the movement of the stratification interface was
slower in CFD simulation. Mausi et al. (1987) numerically studied
Table 1D
thermal stratification in cylindrical geometry with an in house code.
Details of conclusions and limitations of the research work carried out by the
The predicted result agreed well with the experimental results for researchers.
lower value of Richardson number (Ri). Investigations for higher
Authors Conclusions Limitations
values of Ri were not performed. Maekawa (1990) studied the
effect of higher order numerical schemes on thermal stratifica- Lorenz et al. (1977) 1 1, 2
tion. Standard k–ε model (Launder and Spalding, 1974) was used Aoki and Okada (1982) 3, 4 1, 2, 4
Tanaka et al. (1984) 5 1–6
to model turbulent flows. Maekawa (1990) observed that the flow Moriya et al. (1987) 15, 16 2–4, 6
pattern inside the reactor significantly depends on the turbulent Tanaka et al. (1990) 10–12 1–6
eddy viscosity. Transient simulations of Maekawa (1990) showed Ieda et al. (1990) 2 2, 4, 5
that standard k–ε model with the combination of QUICK (Leonard, Ravichandran et al. (1995) 15 2, 4–6
Khimura et al. (1999) 14 2–5
1979), QUICK-FRAM (Chapman, 1984) schemes properly predicts
 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435 421

ied the effect of thermal boundary conditions and the effect of

Limitations
grid size on thermal stratification with sodium as working fluid.
They observed that thermal boundary conditions have a signifi-

7–12

7–12

7–12

7–12

7–12

1–6

1–6
cant effect on transient temperature values. They found that below
a specific grid size one cannot resolve the stratification interface
Conclusions and its characteristics. An important finding by the authors was
that, a turbulence model with higher order numerical schemes is

18–21
17, 18

21, 13
unable to predict oscillatory behaviour of stratification interface in
6, 7

8, 9

22
sodium. This contradicts the finding by Maekawa (1990) who found
5

that a turbulence model with higher order schemes predicts prop-

Assumptions

erly the oscillatory behaviour of stratification interface for water.

Muramatsu and Ninokata (1994) studied the effect of turbulence
models on thermal stratification. They considered three turbulence
1–3

1–4

1–4

1–4

1–4

1–5

1–4
models (i) The k–ε model with constant turbulent Prandtl num-
ber (ii) The k–ε model with turbulent Prandtl number depend on
Time-step

local Richardson number Ri and (iii) The ASM model. The most

0.005 s
important aspect found by the authors was that the interaction
between transport equations for Reynolds stress and turbulent heat
–

HPLA Bounded scheme flux needs the adjustment of values of generic constants. Further,
a suitable combination of higher order schemes with turbulence
order accuracy in time
QUICK-FRAM, Second

QUICK,QUICK-FRAM

models was used for prediction of temperature distribution dur-

First order upwind

ing the thermal stratification process. According to the authors,

scheme, QUICK,
Marker and cell

Marker and cell

QUICK-FRAM

QUICK-FRAM

the ASM model gave better predictions than the other models.
The number of model constants are however large (13 constants)
method

method
Scheme

QUICK,

QUICK,

leading to excessive empiricism. Khimura et al. (1999) carried out

CFD simulations to understand thermal stratification. They studied
the effect of turbulence models and non-dimensional parameters
like Reynolds number (Re) and Richardson number (Ri) on thermal
water22 × 87 for
33 × 27, 27 × 34

stratification. They observed that ASM model predicted thermal

stratification better than standard k–ε model. The authors claim to
38 × 44 for

142 × 93

have good agreement with experimental results. However, it can be

sodium
27 × 32
19 × 22

17 × 26

44 × 82

seen from temperature profiles that for transient analysis the pre-
Grid

dicted profiles are over predicted than the experimental values at

–

initial times. As the time increases better agreement is observed. An

Numerical method

important study has been made by Choi and Kim (2006). They also
Finite Difference
Finite difference

Finite difference

Finite difference

Finite difference

studied the effect of turbulence models on thermal stratification.

Finite volume

The authors importantly cited that a suitable numerical scheme

for convective terms in transport equations is extremely important
method

method

method

method

method

method

for predictions of oscillatory motion in a thermally stratified flow.

Hence the selection of the numerical scheme should be such that
it should be accurate and bounded. In addition they also opined
Water and sodium

that the selection of a turbulence model is very important. Hence,

they carried out simulations using four different two equation tur-
Working fluid

bulence models namely, Elliptic blending model (Mancaeau and

Numerical techniques for thermal stratification studies in previous literature.

Hanjalic, 2002), V2-f model (Medic and Durbin, 2002), Two layer
Sodium

Sodium
Water

Water

Water

Water

model (Chen and Patel, 1988) and Shear stress transport model
(Mentor, 1994) which are better than the ASM model. The com-
parison of the four models has provided excellent insight into the
stratification phenomena. The authors reported that out of the four
Numerical technique

Governing equations

models, Elliptic blending model (EBM) properly predicted thermal

stratification in the reactor. However, the EBM model has more
Navier–Stokes

Navier–Stokes

Navier–Stokes

Navier–Stokes

Navier–Stokes

Navier–Stokes

Navier–Stokes

than 10 empirical constants and would involve very skilful grid

equation

equation

equation

equation

equation

equation

equation

generation at places of strong temperature gradients and turbulent

regions during the stratification process.
Muramatsu and Ninokata (1994)

1.2. Conclusions

1. Small scale water test will provide a good simulation of full

Khimura et al. (1999)

scale sodium behavior.

Choi and Kim (2006)
Tanaka et al. (1984)

Mausi et al. (1987)

2. Threshold of thermal stratification has been calculated for dif-

Maekawa (1990)

Ieda et al. (1990)

ferent values of Reynolds number and Richardson number.

3. Larger occurrence of thermal stratification have been observed
Authors
Table 2A

for higher values of Richardson number in sodium.

4. In water, the speed of stratification interface varies along
the axial direction and slows down above the inner barrel.
422 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435

Table 2B
Details of range and proposed correlation for thermal stratification in the literatures.

Authors T, temperature Non-dimensional parameters and their range Proposed correlation

difference in ◦ C of v* with Ri

Re Ri Pe Pr

Tanaka et al. (1984) 51 1E+05 0–2.4 – – –

Mausi et al. (1987) 9–64 – – – – –
9.6–62
Maekawa (1990) 9.6–62 96E+03 2.36 – –
Ieda et al. (1990) – 1E+03 to 1E+06 1E+02 to 1E+06 – – –
Muramatsu and Ninokata (1994) 9.4–30.1 25,300 12,300 0.5 2.0 – – –
8.3–29.9
Khimura et al. (1999) 24–150 12E+03 to 25E+03 3.4E+03 to 2.2E+04 – – –
Choi and Kim (2006) 8.3–29.9 12,740 2.2 – – –

Free Surface stratification interface has been properly simulate by higher

order schemes.
10. The temperature gradient is found to be small near the stratifi-
cation interface in case of sodium. It is found to be independent
of UIS bottom height in case of water.
11. The ascending speed of stratification interface strongly depends
on UIS bottom height in water. The speed is faster in case of
small UIS bottom height than in the large UIS height.
12. In case of sodium, there is no effect of UIS bottom height on
thermal stratification.
13. In sodium, CFD simulations agreed well with the experimental
data in transient case for higher value of Ri.
14. The ratio of Grashoff number to Reynolds number affects ther-
mal stratification.
15. The correlation has been developed between non-dimensional
Outlet
Axis of Symmetry interface velocity (V*) and Re, Ri, Pe and Gr.
16. Large scale internal waves have been observed in specific range
Wall of Richardson number.
Inlet 17. Thermal boundary conditions have a significant effect on pre-
dicting thermal stratification.
Fig. 3. Schematic of computational model together with boundary conditions.
18. Turbulence models with higher order numerical schemes was
unable to predict oscillatory motion of stratification interface
in sodium. But, the same model with higher order schemes
Whereas, in case of sodium the speed of interface is almost predicts well in water.
constant above the inner barrel. 19. The modeling of buoyancy term in transport equation plays a
5. The geometry of the reactor vessel plays a crucial role in decid- significant role in predicting thermal stratification in water.
ing the occurrence thermal stratification. Low discharge with 20. The modeling of production term in transport equation plays a
high IHX intake and middle discharge with lower or high IHX significant role in predicting thermal stratification in sodium.
intake gives better mixing with no distinct thermal stratifica- 21. Algebraic stress model (ASM) with higher order numerical
tion. Severe thermal stratification has been observed in the low schemes is a robust model to predict thermal stratification in
discharge with low IHX intake or middle IHX intake and middle both water and sodium.
discharge with middle IHX intake. 22. Elliptic blending model (EBM) and elliptic relaxation model
6. Stratification interface was under predicted. (V2-f) models predict properly steep temperature gradient near
7. In water, CFD simulations agreed well with the experimental the stratification interface. The two layer model and shear
data in transient case for lower value of Ri. stress model (SST) predict the diffusive temperature gradient
8. First order schemes for momentum equations was unable to at the interface of thermal stratification and fail to predict a
predict thermal stratification. temporal oscillation of the temperature. EBM model predicts
9. Higher order schemes such as QUICK, QUICK-FRAM agreed best thermal stratification in upper plenum of the liquid metal
well with the experimental data. The oscillatory behaviour of fast breeder reactor.

Table 3
Governing equations for 2D model.

2D Equations
1 ∂
Continuity (ru) + ∂∂zv = 0
r ∂r
∂(u) 1 ∂ ∂
 ∂u  ∂  ∂u  u
1 ∂
Momentum (in radial direction) + (ruu) + (vu) = reff + eff +S
 ∂∂rv  ∂∂z ∂∂zv  v
∂t r ∂r ∂z r ∂r

∂(v) 1 ∂ ∂ 1 ∂
Momentum (in axial direction) + r ∂r (ruv) + ∂z (vv) = r ∂r reff ∂r + ∂z eff ∂z + S
∂t
∂(Cp T ) ∂ ∂ ∂
 ∂T  ∂  ∂T  T
Energy (T) + 1r ∂r (Cp ruT ) + ∂z (Cp vT ) = 1r ∂r reff ∂r + ∂z eff ∂z + S
∂t
∂(k) 1 ∂ ∂ 1 ∂
 ∂k
 ∂  ∂k  k
Turbulent kinetic energy (k) + r ∂r (ruk) + ∂z (vk) = r ∂r reff ∂r + ∂z eff +S
∂t
∂(ε) 1 ∂ ∂ 1 ∂
 ∂ε  ∂  ∂ε∂z  ε
Energy dissipation rate (ε) ∂t
+ r ∂r
(ruε) + ∂z
(vε) = r ∂r
reff ∂r
+ ∂z
eff ∂z
+S
 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435 423

Table 4
Source terms for the transport equations.

 eff S
1 ∂  ∂u
 ∂
  ∂p u
u  + t C r ∂r
reff ∂r
+ ∂z
eff ∂∂rv − ∂r
− 2 ∂k
3 ∂r
−
r2
1 ∂  ∂u
 ∂
 ∂v
 ∂p 2 ∂k
v  + t C r ∂r
reff ∂z
+ ∂z
eff ∂z
− ∂z
− 3 ∂z
+ 0 gˇ(T − T0 )
t
T K+ T
0

Table 5
Source terms for the standard k–ε model.

Variable eff S
t
k + k
G − ε
t ε
ε + (C1 G − C2 ε)
 ε

k
2
2 2 2
where G is production of k=2t (∂u/∂r) +(∂v/∂z) +(u/r) + (∂u/∂z)+(∂v/∂r) .

1.3. Assumptions

1. Fluid is assumed to be Viscous, Newtonian and incompressible.

2. Flow is assumed to be turbulent and axi-symmetric.
3. 2D analysis have been carried out in r-z plane.
4. No slip boundary conditions have been taken on the wall and the Fig. 4. Computational grid.
inner vessel.
12. The reliability of CFD model’s have not been tested for wide
Free slip boundary conditions has been taken on the bottom of the range of Reynolds numbers and Richardson numbers.
vessel.

1.4. Limitations 1.5. Motivation

1. Wide range of Re and Ri were not considered. Literature review shows that during the stratification phenom-
2. The effect of Peclet number on thermal stratification char- ena the complexity lies in selection of numerical scheme and
acteristics such as rising speed of stratification interface and turbulence model that can accurately predict the oscillatory motion
temperature gradient at stratification interface was not studied. in a thermally stratified behaviour. Different turbulence models
3. Type of the reactor under consider was simple. have been used by different researchers for studying stratification
4. Velocity distribution at different radial and axial positions in characteristics. A consensus is not achieved as to which turbulence
the reactor were not considered in both steady and transient model predicts the stratification characteristics reasonably well.
state. The real motivation of the present work is to find out whether
5. Temperature distribution at different axial positions in the selecting an optimum combination of numerical schemes for solv-
reactor were not considered in unsteady state. ing the governing equations and turbulence model parameters
6. Effects of the scale size on thermal stratification were not con-
sidered.
0.12
7. Parametric studies of turbulent models have not been studied.
8. Effect of numerical schemes on turbulent transport quantities
like k and ␧ have not been verified.
0.1
9. Numerical issues such as effect of initial guess values, under
relaxation parameters, grid sensitivity on prediction of thermal
stratification have not been addressed. 0.08
10. Various algorithms for pressure-velocity coupling such as SIM-
V (m/s)

PLE, SIMPLER, SIMPLEC and PISO have not been tested.

11. Most of CFD studies have been carried out in 2D. Whereas, 0.06
thermal stratification in FBR’s is three dimensional phenomena.

0.04
Table 6
Boundary conditions.

Boundary Boundary conditions 0.02

0.75 ∗k0.5 )
(C
Inlet u = 0, v = 0.095 m/s, k = 0.5*(IU) , ε = 0.07∗L (t ≥ 0)
2

T = 334.75 K (t = 0) (steady state) and 283.05 K (t > 0)

(unsteady state)
0
Outlet p = 0 gauge pressure is specified (t ≥ 0) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Wall u = v = 0 (no slip condition) and ∂T = 0(t ≥ 0),
where n is normal to the wall
∂n
z (m)
∂u
Free surface ∂z
= ∂T
∂z
= ∂k
∂z
= ∂ε
∂z
= v = 0(t ≥ 0)
Axis of symmetry ∂v
= ∂T = ∂k = ∂ε = u = 0(t ≥ 0) Fig. 5. Effect of grid size on velocity magnitude, V (m/s) at r = 0.2 m. (- - -) 50 × 55;
∂r ∂r ∂r ∂r
(—) 80 × 80; (•••) 100 × 100.
424 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435

800

600

Niter
400

200

0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
αε

Fig. 6. Effect of number of iterations on convergence (Niter ) on under relaxation Fig. 8. Effect of number of iterations on convergence (Niter ) on under relaxation
parameter for pressure ˛p and for three different values of ˛u . ( ) 0.8; (- - -) parameter for turbulent energy dissipation rate ˛ε and for three different values of
0.7; (—) 0.5. ˛u . ( ) 0.8; (- - -) 0.7; (—) 0.5.

affect the prediction of stratification characteristics using a stan- 2. Boussinesq’s approximation was made. i.e. Density difference
dard k–ε model. Hence, a stepwise procedure has been devised. It is are only important in producing buoyancy. The buoyancy term
thought that first, the effect of various parameters like under relax- is assumed to vary with the temperature according to the
ation parameters and numerical schemes on standard k–ε model relation,
for at steady state flow conditions be studied and the code be stan-  = 0 [1 − ˇ(T − T0 )] (1)
dardised for accuracy and boundedness. After this the turbulent

model parameters values be varied for steady state conditions and 1 ∂
ˇ=− (2)
their effect on flow field was analyzed. Then, the transient studies  ∂T
be taken up and an effort would be made to see if changing the
3. Flow is axi-symmetric.
turbulent model parameters of the standard k–ε model makes an
4. Physical properties except density are assumed to be constant.
effect on the flow pattern and thermal stratification characteristics
5. Temperature range is sufficiently low to include effect of radia-
like the rising of the stratification interface.
tion. Hence radiation effect is neglected.

2. Mathematical model 2.2. Governing equations and boundary conditions

Fig. 3 shows the computational model with the boundary con- In order to model unsteady mixed convection turbulent flows,
ditions. the governing equations (continuity, momentum and energy) with
appropriate Reynolds stress closure have been solved. The basic
2.1. Model assumptions

1. Fluid is assumed to be incompressible and Newtonian.

Fig. 7. Effect of number of iterations on convergence (Niter ) on under relaxation

parameter for turbulent kinetic energy ˛k and for three different values of ˛u .
( ) 0.8; (- - -) 0.7; (—) 0.5. Fig. 9. Flow pattern inside the reactor vessel in steady state.
 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435 425

Table 7
Effect of under relaxation parameters on the rate of convergence.

Cases ˛u ˛p ˛k ˛ε No. of iterations for convergence

1 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.8 156

0.4 0.8 0.8 137
0.5 0.8 0.8 Diverge

2 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.8 259

0.6 0.8 0.8 255

3 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.8 550

0.4 0.8 0.8 529
0.5 0.8 0.8 514

governing equations consist of time averaged equation of conti-
nuity, Reynolds equation of motion and energy. The standard k–ε
model has been used. Table 3 summarizes the details of the govern-
ing equations. The expression for diffusive coefficient and source
term was given in Tables 4 and 5. Table 6 depicts the boundary
conditions at the different boundaries of the domain.
ulation was carried out with a time step size 0.0001 s. All the
simulations were carried out on i7 Intel 64 bit processor with a
clock speed of 3.06 GHz and 8 GB memory. The various parameters
like velocity, turbulent quantities, temperature, etc. were estimated
for every configuration by using the post-processing features of the
software.

2.3. Numerical method of solution

2.4. Grid independence

For CFD simulations we have used commercial code FLUENT 6.3

A rectangular geometry with uniform grid as shown in Fig. 4
(2009). In this code finite volume method (Patankar, 1980) was
has been considered for the grid independence test. In the section,
used for discretization of the governing equations. In order to get a
the grid independency was carried out using three types of grid
better accuracy with respect to time we have used second order
sizes (55 × 55, 80 × 80 and 100 × 100). For these three cases we have
implicit scheme for time discretization. For steady state, QUICK
compared the results of the mean quantities at one radial location
(Leonard, 1979) scheme was used for discretization of convective
(r = 0.2 m) with varying z. Fig. 5 shows the effect of grid sizes on the
terms for momentum equation. We have also studied the effect of
mean velocity of fluid at r = 0.2 m. The predicted velocity profile by
various numerical schemes on the convective term for turbulent
using 55 × 55 differs in the range 0.1 m < z < 0.15 m from other two
variables (k and ε). Afterwards, a suitable combination was used
grids (80 × 80 and 100 × 100). It was clear from Fig. 5, there is no
for unsteady calculations. QUICK scheme was used for momen-
significant change in the velocity profile for 80 × 80 and 100 × 100.
tum equation in unsteady case. Second order upwind scheme was
So, we can consider the grid 80 × 80 for all further computation.
used to model the convective term in the energy equation. All the
solutions were considered to be fully converged when the sum of
residuals were below 10−4 for all the dependent variables except 3. Results and discussion
energy equation. The convergence criteria was set 10−6 for energy
equation. Since, the magnitude for turbulent kinetic energy is small In the present section we present both quantitative and qual-
in comparison with other flow variables (u and v). Transient sim- itative results of CFD simulations for the geometry considered by

Fig. 10. Comparison between experimental and numerical predictions for velocity field. (A) Vector plot from experiment (Moriya et al., 1987), (B) vector plot from CFD
simulation.
426 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435

0.08
0.02
(B)
(A)
0.01
0.04
0
u (m/s)

u (m/s)
-0.01
0

-0.02

-0.03 -0.04
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m) z (m)

Fig. 11. Comparison between simulated and experimental profiles for radial velocity at various radial locations. (A) r = 0.2 m: (—) CFD; () experimental, (B) r = 0.3 m: (—)
CFD; () experimental.

Moriya et al. (1987). Both, steady and transient simulations were
carried out. Initially, the optimization for various numerical param-
eters such as effect of under relaxation parameters, numerical
schemes and turbulent model parameters on turbulent equations
were carried out. Then, transient simulations were studied in order
to study the sensitivity of turbulence model parameters on thermal
stratification. Furthermore, the predicted results were validated
with the experimental data of Moriya et al. (1987).
3.1. CFD simulations in steady state
3.1.1. Effect of the under relaxation parameters on the rate of
convergence
The effect of under relaxation parameters for flow variables
plays a significant role in the convergence of the numerical solu-
tions of the fluid flow problems (Sahu and Joshi, 1995; Barron
and Neyshabouri, 2003). It is a known fact that in a CFD code,
the governing equations for mass and momentum along with the
equations of turbulence are discretized and solved with numerical
schemes. Although changing the relaxation parameters for better
convergence is a common practice we think that it is important to
report the sensitivity of these parameters. First, the under relax-
ation parameters for pressure (˛p ), turbulent kinetic energy (˛k ),
turbulent energy dissipation rate (˛ε ) were systematically changed
between the limits 0.1 and 0.9 for steady state case. Also the
number of iterations for convergence (Niter ) was recorded in each
case (steady state). All these studies were carried out at three dif-
ferent values (0.5, 0.7 and 0.8) of ˛u (under relaxation parameters
for velocities). Fig. 6 depicts the effect of ˛u and ˛p on Niter . For
˛u = 0.8, a very good convergence is obtained for various values
of ˛p in the range of 0.1–0.4. However, the solution diverges for
˛p > 0.4. It was further observed that with decrease of ˛u it requires
more number of iterations for convergence and the range of ˛p
is increased. If we reduce the value of ˛u to 0.7, it was observed
that the range for ˛p was increased from 0.2 to 0.7. When the
value of ˛p is further increased, divergence in solution is observed.
It was interesting to note that, for ˛u = 0.5 the convergence rate
(The speed at which the iterative system converges. Specifically, if
the convergence rate is faster, then the convergence will be faster
otherwise it will be slower) is independent of ˛p in the range of
0.3–1 (Fig. 6). Although, the range for ˛p was extended but, it
affects significantly on the convergence of the numerical solution.
In other words, the convergence is slower for smaller values of ˛u
(Fig. 6).
Fig. 7 shows the effect of ˛u and ˛k on Niter . It is interesting to
note that, for a given value of ˛u the required number of iterations
for convergence sharply decreases as ˛k increases. It was observed
that for ˛u = 0.8, the convergence is slower for smaller values of
␣k . It took around 1838 iterations to get a converge solution for
˛u = 0.8 and ˛k = 0.1. As the value of ˛k (0.2–0.9) is increased the

0.03
0.025 (B)
(A)
0.02
0.01
v (m/s)
v (m/s)

0.01
-0.005

-0.02 0

-0.035 -0.01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m) z (m)

Fig. 12. Comparison between simulated and experimental profiles for axial velocity at various radial locations (A) r = 0.2 m: (—) CFD; () experimental, (B) r = 0.3 m: (—) CFD;
() experimental.
 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435 427

Table 8
Effect of numerical schemes on flow pattern.

Cases Turbulent energy equation, k (m2 /s2 ) Turbulent dissipation rate, ␧ (m2 /s3 ) Flow pattern

1 1st order upwind 1st order upwind Yes

2 2nd order upwind 2nd order upwind No
3 Power Law Power Law No
4 Quick Quick No
6 1st order upwind 2nd order upwind No
7 1st order upwind Power Law No
8 1st order upwind QUICK No
9 2nd order upwind 1st order upwind Yes
10 Power Law 1st order upwind No
11 QUICK 1st order upwind Yes

0.04
(A) 0.08
(B)
0.02
0.04

u (m/s)
u (m/s)

0
0

-0.02 -0.04

-0.04 -0.08
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m) z (m)

Fig. 13. Effect of numerical schemes on radial velocity at various radial locations (A) r = 0.2 m: (—) k (1st order upwind scheme) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); (- - -) k
(2nd order upwind scheme) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); ( ) k (QUICK) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); () experimental. (B) r = 0.3 m: (—) k (1st order upwind
scheme) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); (- - -) k (2nd order upwind scheme) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); ( ) k (QUICK) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); ()
experimental.

number of iterations needed for convergence decreases. Further,
when the value of ˛u is decreased from 0.8 to 0.5 (corresponding
values of ˛k are 0.1–0.4), the time taken for getting a converged
solution is more. For example, for ˛u = 0.5 and ˛k = 0.1 the iterative
system converges after 2155 iterations. It was observed that for a
given value of ˛u , the convergence is faster for larger values of ˛k .
The faster convergence was observed for the ˛u = 0.8 and ˛k = 0.9
(Fig. 7).
Fig. 8 depicts the effect of ˛u and ˛ε on Niter . It is interesting to
note that for a given value of ˛u , the solution diverges for ˛ε < 0.5. It
was also observed that the convergence is slower for small values
of ˛u . Several combinations of under relaxation parameters were
considered. Table 7 shows the effect of relaxation parameters on the
convergence of the flow variables. Patankar (1980) suggested that
by using ˛u = 0.5 and ˛p = 0.8 the faster convergence is obtained in
SIMPLE algorithm. However, in the present system it was observed

0.02 0.04
(A) (B)
0.03
0

0.02
v (m/s)
v (m/s)

-0.02
0.01

-0.04
0

-0.06 -0.01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m) z (m)

Fig. 14. Effect of numerical schemes on axial velocity at various radial locations (A) r = 0.2 m: (—) k (1st order upwind scheme) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); (- - -) k
(2nd order upwind scheme) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); ( ) k (QUICK) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); () experimental. (B) r = 0.3 m: (—) k (1st order upwind
scheme) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); k (2nd order upwind scheme) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); ( ) k (QUICK) and ε (1st order upwind scheme); ()
experimental.
428 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435

0.15
0.15
(A) (B)
0.12
0.12

0.09 0.09

μt (kg/ms)
μt ( kg/ms)
0.06 0.06

0.03 0.03

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m) z (m)

Fig. 15. Effect of C on the eddy viscosity ␮t (A) r = 0.2 m: ( ) 0.05; (- - -) 0.07; (—) 0.09. (B) r = 0.3 m: ( ) 0.05; (- - -) 0.07; (—) 0.09.

that the following values: ˛u = 0.8, ˛p = 0.4, ˛k = 0.8, ˛ε = 0.8 gives shows that it is necessary to improve the CFD predictions inside the
the faster convergence. cylindrical plenum.
Fig. 9 shows the predicted velocity contour for the steady state.
The predicted flow patterns were shown with the experimen-
3.1.2. Effect of different numerical schemes on turbulent
tal data (Fig. 10A and B). Two circulation cells were observed
equations
both in experiments and CFD simulations. Fig. 11A and B shows
The effect of different numerical schemes (Table 8) were stud-
the comparison between the experiment and CFD predictions for
ied on the turbulent equations (k and ε). It was observed that the
radial velocity for various radial locations (r = 0.2 and 0.3 m). It was
numerical schemes on the turbulent equations have significant
observed that the predicted result agreed well with the experimen-
effect on the flow field (Table 8). It was found that Power Law
tal data for z > 0.2 m (Fig. 11A). But, for z < = 0.2m it over predicts the
scheme for k equation is not a suitable scheme to model the con-
radial velocity (Fig. 11A). A good observed prediction was observed
vective terms in k equation. Similarly, for ε equation higher order
between CFD and experiment (Fig. 11 B) for radial velocity for z < 0.1
schemes such as Power Law (Patankar, 1980), 2nd order upwind
and z > 0.2 m. Over predictions were observed for radial velocity in
schemes (Ferziger and Peric, 2002) and QUICK schemes (Leonard,
range of axial coordinate for 0.1 m < z < 0.2 m (Fig. 11 B). The max-
1979) were not robust schemes. It was observed that by using
imum value of radial velocity at r = 0.3 m from the experiment is
higher order schemes for ε equation produces one circulation cell
0.01 m/s, where as the maximum predicted value is 6 times the
in the domain (Table 8). Further, it was observed that the predicted
experimental value. Fig. 12A and B shows the comparison between
flow pattern from case 1 (solving both k and ε equation with 1st
the experiment and CFD predictions for axial velocity for vari-
order upwind scheme), case 2 (solving k equation with 2nd order
ous radial locations (r = 0.2 and 0.3 m). For z < 0.2 m, a very good
upwind and ε equation with 1st order upwind) and case 3 (solving k
agreement between experiment and CFD predictions is observed
equation with QUICK scheme and ε equation with 1st order upwind
(Fig. 12A). But, for z > 0.2 m the predicted values under predicts the
scheme) agreed well with the experimental flow pattern. Therefore,
axial velocity (Fig. 12A). A close agreement was observed between
these three different cases were considered and further analyses
CFD predictions and experimental data for z < 0.1 m (Fig. 12B). How-
were carried out to study the effects of the numerical schemes on
ever, it was observed that CFD over predicts the axial velocity for
turbulent equations.
0.1 m < z < 0.2 m (Fig. 12B). For z > 0.2 m, the predicted axial velocity
Fig. 13A and B shows the effect of numerical schemes for radial
under predicts the experimental data (Fig. 12B). The above study
velocity at various radial locations (r = 0.2 and 0.3 m). The predicted

0.04 0.08
(A) (B)
0.06
0.02
0.04
u (m/s)

u (m/s)

0 0.02

0
-0.02
-0.02

-0.04 -0.04
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m)
z (m)

Fig. 16. Effect of C on radial velocity at various radial locations. (A) r = 0.2 m: (—) 0.09; (- - -) 0.07; ( ) 0.05;  experimental. (B) r = 0.3 m: (—) 0.09; (- - -) 0.07; ( )
0.05; () experimental.
 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435 429

0.02 0.04
(A) (B)
0.03
0

0.02

v (m/s)
v (m/s)
-0.02
0.01

-0.04
0

-0.06 -0.01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m) z (m)

Fig. 17. Effect of C on axial velocity at various radial locations. (A) r = 0.2 m: (—) 0.09; (- - -) 0.07; ( ) 0.05;  experimental. (B) r = 0.3 m: (—) 0.09; (- - -) 0.07; ( )
0.05; () experimental.

flow pattern obtained from case 1 agreed well with the experimen-
tal data for z > 0.2 m (Fig. 13A). For z ≤ 0.2 m, case 1 over predicts
the radial velocity, whereas, the profiles for radial velocity obtained
from cases 2 and 3 are similar (Fig. 13A). The predicted radial veloc-
ity from cases 2 and 3 over predicts the experimental data for
z ≤ 0.2 m. It was observed that the predicted radial velocity under
predicts the experimental data in the range of z > 0.3 m for all the
three cases. Fig. 13B depicts that CFD prediction with three different
combinations of numerical schemes for radial velocity at r = 0.3 m.
It was observed that flow pattern from all the three cases were
almost same except in the region for 0.1 m < z < 0.2 m (Fig. 13B). A
over prediction was observed in the range 0.1 m < z < 0.2 m for all
three cases (Fig. 13B). Fig. 14A and B shows the effect of numer-
ical schemes for axial velocity at various radial locations (r = 0.2
and 0.3 m). The predicted flow pattern obtained from all the cases
agreed well with the experimental data for z ≤ 0.15 m (Fig. 14A). For
z > 0.15 m, all the cases under predicted radial velocity (Fig. 14A).
The flow pattern obtained from both the cases (cases 2 and 3) are
almost same (Fig. 14A). The comparison among three cases shows
that for z > 0.15 m from case 1 is closer to the experimental data
(Fig. 14A). It was observed that the predicted result for axial veloc-
ity for all the three cases show the same behaviour (Fig. 14B). But,
there is a slight variation in the axial velocity obtained from case 1.
An over prediction was observed in the region for 0.1 m < z < 0.2 m
for all the three cases (Fig. 14B). An under prediction was observed
in the region for z > 0.2 m for all the three cases (Fig. 14B).
3.1.3. Effect of the turbulent model parameters on the flow field
In standard k–ε model, the values of eddy viscosity are calcu-
lated by the solving of k and ε equations in which
k2
t = C (3)
ε
The equilibrium between the production and dissipation of tur-
bulent kinetic energy in a shear layer indicate that the value of C
is 0.09. Modelling of ‘ε’ equation gives rise to two more important
constants namely C1 and C2 .The measurements of rate of decay of
turbulence behind a grid indicate that the value of C2 is in the range
of 1.8–2.0. These values were obtained by carrying out experiments
in relatively simply geometries, such as shear layers, decay of tur-
bulence behind grid, etc. These relatively simple flows are mostly
one dimensional. The flow occurring in the present system is mainly
two dimensional, axi symmetric, and highly nonlinear. Assuming
the same values of these parameters was thus questionable.
3.1.3.1. Effect of C on the flow field. In the present section, we
carried out sensitivity analysis of C on the flow field. For these
purpose, several values of C were taken. It was observed that for

0.04
0.08
(A) (B)

0.02
0.04
u (m/s)

u (m/s)

0 0

-0.02 -0.04

-0.04 -0.08
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m) z (m)

Fig. 18. Effect of C1 on radial velocity at various radial locations. (A) r = 0.2 m: (—) 1.44; (- - -) 1.5; ( ) 1.64;  experimental. (B) r = 0.3 m: (—) 1.44; (- - -) 1.5; ( )
1.64; () experimental.
430 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435

0.02 0.05
(A) (B)
0.04
0
0.03

v (m/s)

v (m/s)
-0.02 0.02

0.01
-0.04
0

-0.06 -0.01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m) z (m)

Fig. 19. Effect of C1 on axial velocity at various radial locations. (A) r = 0.2 m: (—) 1.44; (- - -) 1.5; ( ) 1.64;  experimental. (B) r = 0.3 m: (—) 1.44; (- - -) 1.5; ( )
1.64; () experimental.

C > 0.09, the solution becomes oscillatory. Experimental data was
compared with the predicted values for C (0.05, 0.07, 0.09) keep-
ing all the other parameters as constant. Fig. 15A and B shows the
effect of C on eddy viscosity at different radial locations (r = 0.2
and 0.3 m). It is interesting to note that the eddy viscosity increases
with an increase in C (Fig. 15A and B).
Fig. 16A depicts that the comparison between experimental data
and CFD prediction for radial velocity at r = 0.2 m. All three values
of C (0.05, 0.07, 0.09) over predicts the experimental data in the
range of z < 0.2 m. It means that the predicted radial velocity over
predicts below the IHX intake. For z > 0.2 m, the result obtained from
all the three values of C under predicts the experimental data
(Fig. 16A). Fig. 16B shows the comparison between experimental
data and CFD prediction for axial velocity at r = 0.3 m. A good agree-
ment between the experiment and CFD for all values of C was
observed in the range of z < 0.1 m (Fig. 16B). For 0.1 m < z < 0.25 m,
there is an over predication for radial velocity for all values of C
(Fig. 16B). For 0.25 m < z < 0.4 m, a good agreement between experi-
mental data and CFD predictions were observed for all values of C
(Fig. 16B). Near the free surface (for z > 0.4 m), the predicted radial
velocity under predicts the experimental data for all values of C
(Fig. 16B). Fig. 17A illustrates that the comparison between exper-
imental data and CFD prediction for axial velocity at r = 0.2 m. A
close agreement between the experiment and CFD for all values of
C in the range of z < 0.2 m was observed (Fig. 17A). For z > 0.2 m, the
predicted axial velocity under predicts the experimental data for all
values of C1 (Fig. 19A). Fig. 19B depicts that the comparison between
experimental data and CFD prediction for axial velocity at r = 0.3 m.
It was also observed that for z < 0.15 m, there is agreement between
the experimental data and CFD predictions for C1 = 1.5 (Fig. 19B). It
was observed that for 0.15 m < z < 0.2 m, the predicted result over
predicts the experimental data for all values of C1 (Fig. 19B). For
z > 0.2 m, the predicted result from CFD simulation under predicts
for all values of C1 (Fig. 19B).
3.1.3.2. Effect of C1 on the flow field. In this section, the effects of C1
were studied on the flow field at various radial location for several
values of C1 . And also a range for C1 was observed (1.44 ≤ C1 ≤ 1.64).
Experimental result shows that there are two circulation cells, how-
ever when C1 < 1.44 only one circulation cell was observed in upper
part of the reactor. Further, three different values of C1 were con-
sidered (1.44, 1.5, 1.64).Two circulation cells were observed for all
values of C1 . But, for C1 > 1.64, the solution becomes oscillatory.
Fig. 18A and B illustrates the comparison between the experi-
mental and CFD predictions for radial velocities at various radial
locations (r = 0.2 and 0.3 m). Fig. 18A depicts the comparison
between experimental and CFD prediction for radial velocity at
r = 0.2 m. It was observed that for z < 0.2 m, the predicted result
obtained from all values of C1 over-predict the experimental data
(Fig. 18A). For z > 0.2 m, the result obtained from C1 = 1.44 agrees

0.04 0.08
(A) (B)

0.02 0.04
u (m/s)
u (m/s)

0 0

-0.02 -0.04

-0.04 -0.08
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m) z (m)

Fig. 20. Effect of C2 on radial velocity at various radial locations. (A) r = 0.2 m: (—) 1.92; (- - -) 1.82; ( ) 2.0;  experimental. (B) r = 0.3 m: (—) 1.92; (- - -) 1.82; ( )
2.0;  experimental.
 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435
0.02
(A)
0
v (m/s)
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
z (m)
Fig. 21. Effect of C2 on axial velocity at various radial locations. (A) r = 0.2 m: (—) 1.92; (- - -) 1.82; (
2.0; () experimental.
with the experimental data (Fig. 18A). The predicted radial velocity
from C1 = 1.5, 1.64 under predicts the experimental data (Fig. 18A).
Fig. 18B depicts that the comparison between experimental data
and CFD prediction for radial velocity at r = 0.3 m. It was observed
that the predicted radial velocity under predicts the experimen-
tal data in the range of z < 0. 06 m (Fig. 18B). A good agreement
between the experimental data and CFD predictions for all values
of C1 were observed in the range of 0.06 m < z < 0.12 m (Fig. 18B). It
was observed that for 0.12 m < z < 0.2 m, there is a over predication
for radial velocity for all values of C1 (Fig. 18B). A close agreement
between experimental data and CFD predictions for all values of C1
were observed in the range of 0.2 m < z < 0.4 m (Fig. 18B). Near the
free surface (for z > 0.4 m), the predicted radial velocity under pre-
dicts the experimental data for all values of C1 (Fig. 18B). Fig. 19A
and B shows the comparison between the experimental and CFD
predictions for axial velocities at various radial locations (r = 0.2 and
0.3 m). Fig. 19A depicts that the comparison between experimental
data and CFD prediction for axial velocity at r = 0.2 m. A good agree-
ment between experimental and CFD predictions were observed for
all values of C1 in the range of z < 0.2 m (Fig. 19A). It was observed
that for 0.15 m < z < 0.2 m, the predicted result over predicts the
experimental data for all values of C1 (Fig. 19A). For z > 0.2 m, the
predicted axial velocity under predicts the experimental data for
all values of C1 (Fig. 19A). Fig. 19B depicts that the comparison
between experimental data and CFD prediction for axial velocity at
r = 0.3 m. It was also observed that for z < 1.5 m, there is agreement
between the experimental data and CFD predictions for C1 = 21.5
(Fig. 19B). It was observed that for 0.15 m < z < 0.2 m, the predicted
result over predicts the experimental data for all values of (Fig. 19B).
For z > 0.2 m, the predicted result from CFD simulation under pre-
dicts for all values of (Fig. 19B).
3.1.3.3. Effect of C2 on the flow field. In the present section, we have
studied the effect of C2 on the flow field at various radial locations.
Several values of C2 were considered. A range was observed for
C2 (1.7 < C2 ≤ 2). For C2 < 1.7, the numerical solution becomes oscil-
latory. One circulation cell was observed for C2 > 2. Further, three
different values of C2 (1.82, 1.92, 2) were considered. The experi-
mental data was compared with the predicted values of C2 keeping
all other parameters constant.
Fig. 20A and B shows the comparison between experimental and
CFD prediction for radial velocity at various radial locations (r = 0.2
and 0.3 m). An over prediction was observed for all values of C2 in
the range of z < 0.1 m (Fig. 20A) It was observed that in the range
of 0.2 m < z <0.4 m, the predicted radial velocity from all values C2
under predicts the experimental data (Fig. 20A). A good agreement
was observed between CFD and experiment near the free surface
431
0.04
(B)
0.03
0.02
v (m/s)
0.01
0
-0.01
0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m)
) 2.0; () experimental. (B) r = 0.3 m: (—) 1.92; (- - -) 1.82; ( )
(z > 0.4 m) for C2 = 2 (Fig. 20A). An underprediction was observed
between CFD and experimental data for C2 = 1.82 and 2. Fig. 20B
depicts that the comparison between experimental data and CFD
prediction for radial velocity at r = 0.3 m. A under prediction was
observed for all values of C2 (Fig. 20B). For 0.1 m < z < 0.2 m, there is
a over predication for radial velocity for all values of C2 (Fig. 20B).
A close agreement between experiment and CFD was observed for
all values of C2 in the range of 0.2 m < z < 0.3 m (Fig. 20B). Near the
free surface (for z > 0.4 m), the predicted radial velocity under pre-
dicts the experimental data for all values of C2 (Fig. 20B). Fig. 21A
depicts the comparison between experimental data and CFD pre-
diction for axial velocity at r = 0.2 m. An excellent prediction was
observed between CFD and experimental data for all values of C2
in the range of z < 0.2 m (Fig. 21A). An improvement in the pre-
dicted axial velocity was observed for C2 = 2 in the range of z > 0.2 m
(Fig. 21A). The predicted axial velocities under predicts the experi-
mental data for all other values of C2 (Fig. 21A). Fig. 21B shows that
the comparison between experimental data and CFD prediction for
axial velocity at r = 0.3 m. A good agreement between experimental
data and CFD predictions was observed for C2 = 1.82 in the region
z < 0.1 m (Fig. 21B). It was also observed that for 0.1 m < z < 0.2 m,
the predicted results over predict the experimental data for all val-
ues of C2 (Fig. 21B). An under prediction was observed for all value
of C2 in the region z > 0.2 m (Fig. 21B).
3.2. CFD simulation in transient case
In the previous section, we have studied the effect of model
parameters on the flow field. In this section, the effect of turbulent
model parameter was studied on thermal stratification character-
istics such as rising speed of stratification.
The height of stratification interface (z) is defined by Moriya
et al. (1987) which states that, “height in hot plenum where the
non-dimensional temperature (T* ) was 50%”, non-dimensional
time (t* ) and non-dimensional height of interface (z* ) are defined
as follows,
T − Tc
T ∗ = 100 × (%) (4)
Th − Tc
Ut
t∗ = (5)
D
z
z∗ = (6)
H
Table 9. depicts the experimental test conditions for the simu-
lation.
Fig. 22A–D illustrates the time sequential development of
stream function in the reactor. It was observed that initially two
432 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435
Fig. 22. Time sequential contour plots for stream function for Re = 19,200. (A) t = 30 s (B) t = 60 s (C) t = 120 s (D) t = 240 s.
counter rotating circulation cells were developed approximately at
25–30 s (Fig. 22A) below the inner outlet (IHX intake) of the reac-
tor. Also, a small circulation cell was observed near the bottom of
the reactor (Fig. 22B). At around 60 s, these two counter rotating
cells merge into a single cell below the inner outlet (IHX intake).
Then, this cell moves towards the left wall. In the mean time, the
small circulation cell which was observed earlier below the bottom
started growing and moves slowly towards the wall below the IHX
intake (Fig. 22C). This circulation becomes stronger. Then, it moves
slowly and becomes slightly elongated below the IHX intake. For
the long period time it stays there. No circulation was observed in
the upper part of the IHX intake.
Fig. 23A–D shows the time sequential development of the tem-
perature contours in the reactor vessel. In a very few seconds,
a faster heat transfer was observed between hot and cold water
below IHX intake. A steep temperature gradient was seen below
the IHX intake. In the simulation, distinct thermal stratification
was observed in the reactor at around 120 s (Fig. 23C). Fig. 24
shows the comparison between the experimental data and CFD
Table 9
Experimental test conditions.
v (m/s) Tc (K) Th (K) Re
0.095 283.05 334.75 19200
predictions of temporal variation of stratification interface height.
It was observed in the experiment, that the interface movement is
faster below the outlet of the inner cylinder (IHX intake). Similar
kind observation was made by CFD model in the lower part of the
outlet of the inner cylinder (IHX intake). This faster movement of
stratification interface below IHX intake may be attributed due to
the formation of two counter rotating circulation cells (Fig. 22A
and B). A good agreement was observed between experimental
data and CFD model in the lower part of the vessel (Fig. 24).
But, in the upper part of the vessel, CFD under predicts the ris-
ing speed of the stratification interface. This may be attributed due
to non-formation circulation cell in the upper part of IHX intake
(Fig. 22D).
The sensitivity of C was carried out in the transient case. Three
different values of C (0.05, 0.07, 0.09) were taken to study the
effect of model parameter’s on the thermal stratification character-
istics such as rising speed of the stratification interface (Fig. 25). It
was observed that in the lower part of the outlet (z* < 0.45), the pre-
dicted result obtained from standard k–ε model (C = 0.09) shows
better agreement with the experimental data as compared with the
other values of C . CFD predictions obtained from 0.05, 0.07 under
predict the experimental observation in the lower part of outlet.
Ri It is interesting to note that for all the values C , CFD predictions
3.7
under predict the experimental observation in the upper part of the
outlet.
 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435 433

Fig. 23. Temperature contours at various times for Re = 19200; Ri = 3.7. (A) t = 30 s (B) t = 60 s (C) t = 120 s (D) t = 240 s.

0.75
0.75

0.6
0.6

0.45
0.45
z*
z*

0.3
0.3

0.15
0.15

0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 50 100 150 200 250
t* t*

Fig. 24. Comparison between experimental and numerical result for stratification Fig. 25. Effect of C on the rising speed of the stratification interface. ( ) 0.07;
interface height. (—) CFD; () experimental. (- - -) 0.05; (—) 0.09; () experimental.
434 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435

0.8 outlet the predicted interface height is same from the both 1.82 and
1.92, respectively. Whereas, the prediction of interface height from
2.0 is smaller as compared to other values of C2 . It was observed
that, for all values of C2 , the predicted result underpredicts the
0.6
experimental observation in the upper part of the reactor vessel.

0.4
z*

4. Conclusions

In the present study, steady state CFD simulations were car-

0.2 ried out to study the effect of turbulent model parameters on the
flow field. CFD simulations have been carried out to study the
effect of under relaxation parameters, numerical schemes on tur-
bulent equations and turbulent model parameters on the flow field.
0 Transient simulations were carried out to study the sensitivity of
0 50 100 150 200 250 turbulent model parameters on thermal stratification. The follow-
t* ing observations were made from the present study,

Fig. 26. Effect of C1 on the rising speed of the stratification interface. (- - -) 1.5; (—)
1.44; () experimental. 1. For larger value of ˛u , the range of ˛p is restricted. Whereas, for
smaller value of ˛u , the range of ˛p is not restricted. It takes val-
0.75 ues from 0.1 to 1. But, it has been observed that for smaller values
of ˛u , the convergence is slower. It was interesting to note that,
no restriction has been found for ˛k (0.1–0.9) for different value
0.6 of ˛u . But, for ˛k = 1.0, the solution becomes oscillatory. Also, it
has been observed that when ˛ε < 0.5, the solution become oscil-
latory. For, the present flow conditions, ˛u = 0.8, ˛p = 0.4, ˛k = 0.8,
0.45 ˛ε = 0.8 gives a faster convergence for the suitable choice of guess
values.
z*

2. Power Law scheme for k-equation is not a suitable scheme

0.3
0.15
0 This is one of the most important conclusions which shows that
0 50 100 150 200 250
t*
Fig. 27. Effect of C2 on the rising speed of the stratification interface. (
(—) 1.92; (- - -) 2.0; () experimental.
Since, C1 appears in the production and buoyancy terms of ε
equation, it is very essential to study the sensitivity of C1 on ther-
mal stratification in the reactor vessel. Fig. 26 depicts the effect
of C1 (1.44, 1.5) on the rising speed of the stratification inter-
face. It was observed that, CFD predictions by standard k–ε model
(C1 = 1.44), shows a better agreement with the experimental obser-
vation below the outlet of inner cylinder (IHX intake) as compared
C1 = 1.5. CFD prediction for movement of stratification interface was
significantly improved in the upper part of the reactor by using
C1 = 1.5. It is observed that for all values of C1 , CFD under predicts
the experimental measurements in the upper part of the outlet (for
z* > 0.45).
Further, sensitivity of C2 (1.82, 1.92, 2.0) was carried out on ther-
mal stratification (Fig. 27). Since, C2 appears in the production and
buoyancy term of ε equation, so it is necessary to verify the sen-
sitivity of C2 on the thermal stratification characteristics such as
rising speed of the stratification interface. Fig. 27 illustrates the
effect of C2 on the variation of non-dimensional interface height
with non-dimensional time. It was observed that CFD predictions
by standard k–ε model (C2 = 1.92) shows a better agreement with
the experimental observation as compared to other values of C2 .
The predicted results obtained from C2 = 1.82, 1.92 shows the same
variation above the outlet (z* > 0.45). That means, above the inner
to model the convective terms in k-equation. The flow pat-
tern obtained by using higher order numerical schemes for
ε-equation did not agreed with the experimental observation.
Surprisingly, it was observed that a lower order schemes give
a better prediction in comparison with higher order schemes.
if the under-relaxation parameters and grids are standardized a
lower order numerical scheme for turbulent equations (k and ε)
and higher order scheme (momentum and energy) can also give
) 1.82;
accurate results and faster convergence.
3. A range was obtained from turbulent model parameters. It is
interesting to note that for C > 0.09, the solution becomes oscil-
latory. It was observed that for C1 < 1.44, the predicted flow
pattern did not agreed with the experimental flow pattern. For
C1 > 1.64, the numerical solution become oscillatory. For C2 < 1.7,
the numerical solution becomes oscillatory. For C2 > 2.0, the pre-
dicted flow pattern did not agreed well with the experimental
observation. For higher values of C2 , one circulation cell was
observed in the domain.
4. Transient studies shows that, in the lower part of the reactor
vessel (below the inner outlet) CFD predictions by standard val-
ues of model parameters by k–ε model agreed well with the
experimental observations as compared to other values model
parameters. It was found that for C1 = 1.5, the predicted interface
was improved in the upper part of the reactor. It was observed
that, above the inner outlet the predicted interface height is same
for C2 = 1.82, 1.92. Whereas, the predicted height for C2 = 2, is
smaller as compared to other values of C2 .
To summarize: The inter-relation between various parameters
has been studied thoroughly. The optimization of relaxation param-
eters with a grid independent geometry helps in selecting an
accurate numerical scheme for the turbulence equations. The vari-
ation in turbulence model parameters does improve the accuracy
of predictions though not fully.
 S.S. Das et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 250 (2012) 417–435
Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic
Research (IGCAR) for the facility of research and funding it has
provided.
References
Aoki, T., Okada, K., 1982. Experimental study on thermal stratification. In: Proc. IAEA
Specialists. Meeting Internal Working Group on Fast Reactors, Grenoble.
Barron, R.M., Neyshabouri, A., 2003. Effects of under relaxation parameters on tubu-
lent flow simulations. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 42, 923–928.
Choi, S.K., Kim, S., 2006. The role of turbulence models for predicting a thermal
stratification. J. Press. Vessel Technol. 128, 65–662.
Chapman, M., 1984. FRAM-nonlinear damping algorithms for the continuity equa-
tion. J. Comput. Phys. 44, 84.
Chen, H.C., Patel, V.C., 1988. Near wall turbulence models for complex flows includ-
ing separation. AIAA J. 26, 641–648.
Deumaran, A.O., Rodi, W., 1980. Calculation of turbulence driven secondary motion
in non circular ducts. J. Fluid Mech. 140, 189–222.
Ferziger, J.H., Peric, M., 2002. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, third rev.
ed. Springer.
Ieda, Y., Maekawa, I., Muramatsu, T., Nakanishi, S., 1990. Experimental and analyt-
ical studies of thermal stratification phenomenon in the outlet plenum of fast
breeder reactor. Nucl. Eng. Des. 120, 403–414.
Khimura, N., Nishimura, M., Hayashi, K., Kamide, H., 1999. An investigation of ther-
mal stratification phenomenon in fast breeder reactors sodium experiments and
analysis. In: 7th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Tokyo, Japan,
pp. 19–23.
Launder, B.E., Spalding, D.B., 1974. The numerical computation of turbulence flows.
Comput. Methods Appl. Eng. 3, 269.
Lorenz, J.J., Carlson, R.D., Howard, P.A., 1977. The influence of scale size and fluid
thermal properties in simulating LMFBR outlet plenum behaviour. AIChE Symp.
73, 120–126.
Leonard, B.P., 1979. A stable and accurate convective modelling procedure based on
quadratic interpolation. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 19, 59–98.
435
Laxman, D., Gupta, P.K., Kumar, A.S., Shivakumar, N.S., Gopal, C.S., Padmakumar, G.,
Prakash, V., Anandbabu, C., Vaidyanathan, G., 2006. Experimental investigations
of thermal stratification in a reduced scale model of PFBR. In: 18th National and
7th ISHMT-ASME Heat and Mass Transfer Conference, IIT Guwahati, India.
Moriya, S., Tanaka, N., Katano, N., Wada, A., 1987. Effects of Reynolds number and
Richardson number on thermal stratification in hot plenum. Nucl. Eng. Des. 99,
441–451.
Mausi, A., Koga, T., Moriya, S., Tanaka, N., 1987. Study of turbulent analysis code.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 99, 109–116.
Maekawa, I., 1990. Numerical diffusion in single-phase multi-dimensional thermal
hydraulics analysis. Nucl. Eng. Des. 120, 323–339.
Muramatsu, T., Ninokata, H., 1994. Investigation of turbulence modelling in thermal
stratification analysis. Nucl. Eng. Des. 150, 81–93.
Mentor, F.R., 1994. Two equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications. AIAA J. 32, 1598–1604.
Medic, G., Durbin, P.A., 2002. Toward improved prediction of heat transfer on turbine
blades. ASME J. Turbo Machine 124, 187–192.
Mancaeau, R., Hanjalic, K., 2002. Elliptic blending model: a new near wall Reynolds
stress turbulence closure. Phys. Fluids 14, 744–754.
Noat, D., Rodi, W., 1982. Numerical simulation of secondary currents in channel flow.
J. Hyd. Div. ASCE 108, 948–968.
Patankar, S.V., 1980. Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. In: Hemisphere. Taylor
and Francis Group, New York.
Ravichandran, G., Padmakumar Vaidyanathan, G., Titus, G., Rajkumar, A., Chetal, S.,
Kale, R., 1995. Experimental and theoretical studies of thermal stratification in
hot pool of PFBR , SACAI, IGCAR, Jan 4–6, Kalpakkam, India.
Rodi, W., 1980. Turbulence Models and Their Application in Hydraulics – A State of
the Art Review. IAHR, Delft, The Netherlands.
Sahu, A.K., Joshi, J.B., 1995. Simulation of flow in stirred vessels with axial flow
impellers: effects of various numerical schemes and turbulence model param-
eters. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 34, 626–639.
Tanaka, N., Moriya, S., Wada, A., 1984. Thermal hydraulic characteristics in a liquid
metal fast breeder reactor hot plenum. Nucl. Eng. Des. 88, 445–463.
Tanaka, N., Moriya, S., Ushijima, S., Koga, T., Egachi, Y., 1990. Prediction method for
thermal stratification in a reactor vessel. Nucl. Eng. Des. 120, 395–402.
Vidil, R., Grand, D., Leroux, F., 1988. Interaction of recirculation and stable strat-
ification in a rectangular cavity filled with sodium. Nucl. Eng. Des. 105,
321–332.