Validation of the STEG code using PGV experiments on hydrodynamics of horizontal steam generator

Computational analysis of the steam-water flow through a submerged perforated sheet

“…The saturated steam pressure is 7 MPa, while the density and dynamic viscosity are 36.5 kg/m 3 and 1.9×10 -5 Pa*s, respectively. All above mentioned parameters correspond to the experimental conditions at the SG test facility [7,8].…”

“…This is most clearly expressed for the SST model -with an increase in the number of cells from 309 thousand to 770 thousand control volumes, the results practically do not change (0.02%). The results calculated with the most detailed grid No.4 for pressure drops are compared with the value ∆Pexp = 980 Pa obtained experimentally [7,8], Table 2. The SST turbulence model predicts the most accurate result with an error of less than 3%.…”

“…Figure 9 shows the coefficients of hydraulic resistance 𝜉𝜉 = ∆𝑃𝑃 0,5𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 2 , calculated by the FlowVision code and obtained in experiments at the PGV test facility [7,8] for different values of the degree of perforation of the SPS. There is a very good agreement of the values of the hydraulic resistance coefficients, the relative error is 0.13-2.79%.…”

“…In general, these works proved the ability of an SPS to reduce the spatial non-uniformity of the steam load. The most complete study of the influence of submerged perforated sheets with different designs on the equalization of the steam load was performed at the PGV test facility [7,8]. The test section was a slice-model of the upper part of the steam generator, starting from the upper rows of the tube bundle and ending with the distribution perforated sheet.…”

“…In this paper, the FlowVision code [11] is used to simulate a single-phase steam flow through an SPS hole under experimental conditions [7,8].…”