Epistemic uncertainty in URANS based CFD analysis of buoyancy driven flows—Comparison of URANS and LES

Ji, Ruiyun; Wenig, Philipp J.; Kelm, Stephan; Klein, Markus

doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2022.109563

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The broader applicability and improved accuracy of these models make them excellent choices for studying the complex fluid dynamics phenomena found in nuclear facilities. This increase in the utilization of SRS models has been observed through a growing number of articles in recent years, particularly in terms of their comparison with results obtained using RANS models [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Additionally, they have been employed as substitutes for experimental results in cases where budget constraints limited the feasibility of experimentation or where a reduction in the number of experimental scenarios to evaluate was required.…”

Section: Introduction mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Turbulence Models for Thermal-Hydraulic Simulations in Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors

Pérez,

Rodríguez,

M. Lorenzo

et al. 2023

Atom Indo.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a comparative study of various turbulence models applied in the context of thermal-hydraulic simulations for liquid fuel reactors, specifically Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors (AHR) using Computational Fluid Dynamics. The objective was to assess the suitability of the turbulence models by comparing their results with data obtained from Large Eddy Simulation (LES). For that purpose, was compared the flow behavior predicted using the k-ε, SST, GEKO, DES, SBES, and LES turbulence models. The calculations were carried out in a simplified computational model derived from a pre-existing three-dimensional AHR conceptual design. By utilizing this simplified model, the study aimed to focus on the computational differences between the turbulence models, while minimizing the influence of other factors. The calculation results revealed that the k-ε model exhibited significant discrepancies with the LES, with relative differences for the fuel solution maximum temperature reaching up to 75 %. Among the remaining RANS models, the Shear Stress Transport (SST) model demonstrated the best compromise between accuracy and computational efficiency, with differences below 5 % and requiring only 1/5th of the time, compared to the LES model. The Scale-Resolving Simulation (SRS) models,DES and SBES, provided a more comprehensive description of flow behavior and results closer to LES, albeit with higher computational demands. Between these two models, only the DES model exhibited relative differences below or equal to 1 % compared to the LES model for the studied thermohydraulic parameters.

show abstract