Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Improvement of crossflow model of MULTID component in MARS-KS with inter-channel mixing model for enhancing analysis performance in rod bundle

  • Yunseok Lee (Department of Safety Engineering, Incheon National University) ;
  • Taewan Kim (Department of Safety Engineering, Incheon National University)
  • Received : 2023.04.24
  • Accepted : 2023.08.08
  • Published : 2023.12.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

MARS-KS, a domestic regulatory confirmatory code of Republic of Korea, had been developed by integrating RELAP5/MOD2 and COBRA-TF. The integration of COBRA-TF allowed to extend the capability of MARS-KS, limited to one-dimensional analysis, to multi-dimensional analysis. The use of COBRA-TF was mainly focused on subchannel analyses for simulating multi-dimensional behavior within the reactor core. However, this feature has been remained as a legacy without ongoing maintenance. Meanwhile, MARS-KS also includes its own multidimensional component, namely MULTID, which is also feasible to simulate three-dimensional convection and diffusion. The MULTID is capable of modeling the turbulent diffusion using simple mixing length model. The implementation of the turbulent mixing is of importance for analyzing the reactor core where a disturbing cross-sectional structure of rod bundle makes the flow perturbation and corresponding mixing stronger. In addition, the presence of this turbulent behavior allows the secondary transports with net mass exchange between subchannels. However, a series of assessments performed in previous studies revealed that the turbulence model of the MULTID could not simulate the aforementioned effective mixing occurred in the subchannel-scale problems. This is obvious consequence since the physical models of the MULTID neglect the effect of mass transport and thereby, it cannot model the void drift effect and resulting phasic distribution within a bundle. Thus, in this study, the turbulence mixing model of the MULTID has been improved by means of the inter-channel mixing model, widely utilized in subchannel analysis, in order to extend the application of the MULTID to small-scale problems. A series of assessments has been performed against rod bundle experiments, namely GE 3X3 and PSBT, to evaluate the performance of the introduced mixing model. The assessment results revealed that the application of the inter-channel mixing model allowed to enhance the prediction of the MULTID in subchannel scale problems. In addition, it was indicated that the code could not predict appropriate phasic distribution in the rod bundle without the model. Considering that the proper prediction of the phasic distribution is important when considering pin-based and/or assembly-based expressions of the reactor core, the results of this study clearly indicate that the inter-channel mixing model is required for analyzing the rod bundle, appropriately.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Nuclear Safety Research Program through the Korea Foundation Of Nuclear Safety (KoFONS) using the financial resource granted by the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) of the Republic of Korea. (No. 2003002). This work was also supported by Incheon National University Research Grant in 2020 (No. 2020-0396).

References

  1. M. Sadatomi, A. Kawahara, Y. Sato, Prediction of the single-phase turbulent mixing rate between two parallel subchannels using a subchannel geometry factor, Nucl. Eng. Des. 162 (1996) 245-256.
  2. M. Kh Ibragimov, I.A. Isupov, L.L. Kobzr, V.I. Subbotin, Calculation of the tangentional stresses at the wall of channel and the velocity distribution in a turbulent flow of liquid, Atom. Energy 21 (1966) 731-739.
  3. Hae-yong Jeong, , Kwi-seok Ha, Young-min Kwon, Won-pyo Chang, Yong-bun Lee, A correlation for single phase turbulent mixing in square rod arrays under high turbulent conditions, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 38 (2006) 809-818.
  4. D.S. Rowe, B.M. Johnson, J.G. Knudsen, Implications concerning rod bundle crossflow mixing based on measurements of turbulent flow structure, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 17 (1974) 404-419.
  5. K.J. Petrunik, Turbulent Mixing Measurements for Single Phase Air, Single Phase Water, and Two-phase Air-Water Flows in Adjacent Rectangular Subchannels, Master Thesis, Chemical Engineering, Master Thesis, Chemical Engineering, University of Windsor, Canada, 1968.
  6. F.B. Walton, Turbulent Mixing Measurements for Single Phase Air, Single Phase Water, and Two-phase Air-Water Flows in Adjacent Triangular Subchannels, Master Thesis, Chemical Engineering, University of Windsor, Canada, 1969.
  7. F.S. Castellena, W.T. Adams, J.E. Casterline, Single-phase subchannel mixing in a simulated nuclear fuel assembly, Nucl. Eng. Des. 26 (1974) 242-249.
  8. D.S. Rowe, C.W. Angle, Crossflow mixing between parallel flow channels during boiling, Part II Measurement of flow and enthalpy in two parallel channels, BNWL371 PT2 (1967).
  9. M. Sadatomi, A. Kawahara, K. Kano, Y. Sumi, Single- and two-phase turbulent mixing rate between adjacent subchannels in a vertical 2x3 rod array channel, Int. J. Multiphas. Flow 30 (2004) 481-498.
  10. Neil E. Todreas, Mujid S. Kazimi, Subchannel analysis, in: Nuclear Systems II - Elements of Thermal Hydraulic Design, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 1990, pp. 209-284.
  11. R.T. Lahey, F.J. Moody, Subchannel analysis, in: The Thermal-Hydraulics of A Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor, second ed., American Nuclear Society, 1993, pp. 168-184.
  12. Nuclear Energy Agency, Int. Benchmark Pressurised Water React. Sub channel. Bundle Tests II (2015) 4. Benchmark results of phase I - Void distribution, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2016, NEA/NSC/R.
  13. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, TRACE V5.0 PATCH 6 USER'S MANUAL, Volume I: Input Specification, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2020.
  14. G. Geffraye, O. Antoni, D. Kadri, G. Lavialle, B. Rameau, A. Ruby, CATHARE 2 V2.5_2: a single version of various applications, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (2011) 4456-4463.
  15. Korea Institute of, Nuclear Safety, MARS-KS CODE MANUAL, Volume II: Input Requirements, vol. 2, 2018. KINS/RR-1822.
  16. I. Clifford, H. Ferroukhi, Assessing the effects of switching from multi-channel to three-dimensional nodalisations of the core in TRACE, Nucl. Eng. Des. 383 (2021), 111446.
  17. Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, MARS-KS CODE MANUAL, volume I, Theor. Manual 1 (2018). KINS/RR-1822.
  18. Yunseok Lee, Taewan Kim, Influence of two-phase crossflow for void prediction in bundles using thermal-hydraulic system codes, Energies 13 (2020) 3686.
  19. Yunseok Lee, Taewan Kim, Assessment of MARS-KS MULTID Component with Subchannel Mixing Model : ISPRA Experiment, 2022. NSTAR-22NS22-174.
  20. R.T. Lahey Jr., B.S. Shirlakar, D.W. Radcliffe, Two-phase flow and heat transfer in multirod geometries: subchannel and pressure drop measurements in a nine-rod bundle for diabatic and adiabatic conditions, Tech. rep. Gen. Electrics (1970). GEAP-1304.
  21. A. Rubin, A. Schoedel, M. Avramova, OECD/NRC Benchmark Based on NUPEC PWR Subchannel and Bundle Tests (PSBT), Volume I: Experimental Database and Final Problem Specifications, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2010, p. 1. NEA/NSC/DOC(2010).
  22. Dae-Hyun Hwang, Yeon-Jong Yoo, Wang-Kee In, Sung-Quun Zee, Assessment of the interchannel mixing model with a subchannel analysis code for BWR and PWR conditions, Nucl. Eng. Des. 199 (2000) 257-272.
  23. Bo Pang, Xu Cheng, Numerical Study of Void Drift under PWR Conditions with CFD Approach, Topical Meeting on Advances in Thermal Hydraulics (ATH), Nevada, Reno, 2014.
  24. S.G. Beus, Two-phase Turbulent Mixing Model for Flow in Rod Bundles, 1972. WAPD-T-2438.
  25. H. Herkenrath, W. Hufschmidt, U. Jung, F. Weckermann, Experimental Investigation of Enthalpy and Mass Flow Distribution in 16-rod Clusters with BWRPWR Geometries and Conditions, Commission of the European Communities, 1981. EUR 7575.
  26. M. Sadatomi, A. Kawahara, Y. Sato, Flow redistribution due to void drift in two-phase flow in a multiple channel consisting of two subchannels, Nucl. Eng. Des. 148 (1994) 463-474.
  27. M.P. Sharma, A.K. Nayak, Experimental investigation of void drift in simulated subchannels of a natural-circulation pressure tube-type BWR, Nucl. Technol. 197 (2017) 158-170.
  28. S. Levy, Prediction of two-phase pressure drop and density distribution from mixing length theory, J. Heat Tran. 82 (1963) 137-150.
  29. R.T. Lahey Jr., B.S. Shiralkar, D.W. Radcliffe, E.E. Polomik, Out-of-pile subchannel measurements in a nine-rod bundle for water at 1000 psia, Heat Mass Tran. (1972) 345-363.
  30. Neil E. Todreas, Mujid S. Kazimi, Transport equations for two-phase flow, in: Nuclear Systems I -Thermal Hydraulic Fundamentals, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 1990, pp. 125-170.
  31. W.T. Sha, B.T. Chao, Novel porous media formulation for multiphase flow conservation equations, Nucl. Eng. Des. 237 (2007) 918-942.
  32. R.K. Salko, T.S. Blyth, C.A. Dances, J.W. Magedanz, C. Jernigan, J. Kelly, A. Toptan, M. Gergar, M.N. Avramova, S. Palmtag, J.C. Gehin, CTF Validation and Verification, US Department of Energy, 2016. CASL-U-2016-1113-000.
  33. Yunseok Lee, Taewan Kim, Assessment of void fraction predictability of system codes in subchannels, Kerntechnik 83 (5) (2018) 414-425.