CFD analysis of flow boiling in the ITER first wall

Computational modelling of the HyperVapotron cooling technique

“…This study showed that the most appropriate approach is based on a method originally developed by Podowski et al [26,27] at the Centre for Multiphase Research (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), USA). The so-called RPI boiling model has been used or adapted by a number of researchers [12,13,17,18,20,21,28] and is based on a 3-way partition of the heat flux applied at the wall Q w = Q c + Q q + Q e , where Q c is the heat flux corresponding to convective heat transfer, Q q is the heat flux corresponding to quenching and Q e is the evaporation heat flux. These terms can be calculated in the following way:…”

“…Although transition to CHF is interesting experimentally, the complexity of deriving a single model that can account for the transition from discrete nucleation sites to a vapour film (and eventual burnout) means few researchers have successfully formulated such a model. Examples where this has been attempted with reasonable success can be found in [12,13,17,18] however, for reasons of robustness and uncertainty of the overall benefit, this was not attempted here.…”

“…In recent years, a number of research groups have independently begun to use Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods to assess theoretically the HyperVapotron heat transfer mechanisms [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Whilst these methods have shared a number of similarities, the submodelling and overall objectives have differed.…”

Computational thermal fluid dynamic analysis of Hypervapotron heat sink for high heat flux devices application

“…STARCCM+ [3], is one of the tool which is having this capability. Previously this tool was used to do the boiling analysis inside a flat channel [4], and the results show that the Rohsenow boiling model as in STARCCM+ is able to capture the physics with very low relative errors. In this work two boiling models are used to do the two phase flow analysis, the first one is Rohsenow boiling model and the second one is Transition boiling model as in STARCCM+.…”

“…Among these Hypervapotron is capable of handling heat fluxes in excess of 30 MW/m 2 , and for an equivalent flow the Hypervapotron has higher CHF limit, and lower pressure drop compared to swirl tubes [2]. This paper deals with the computational thermal fluid dynamic analysis of Hypervapotron, where two different boiling models are compared: Rohsenow boiling model [3], with the capability to model both nucleate and film boiling regimes, which was previously tested on flat-channel geometry [4] and Transition boiling model [3], with the capability to model nucleate and transition boiling regimes, which is more general than the more popular Rohsenow boiling model [5]. These models are available in the commercial CFD code STARCCM+ [3], and use Volume of Fluid (VOF) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2015.02.017 0920-3796/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.…”