Progress on Computational Modeling of Water-Based NSTF (FY2021)

Abstract

This report documents the FY21 progress and achievements made in the computational analyses of the water-based NSTF. Both system-level and high-fidelity Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analyses were performed to gain a complete understanding of the complex flow and heat transfer phenomena in natural convection systems. The progress on the waterbased NSTF experimental testing is summarized in a companion report (ANL-ART-230). As a continuation of progress from previous years, in FY21 the RELAP5 model of the NSTF was first updated to include a representative heated cavity that incorporated convection and conduction means of heat transfer. Two different cavity models were developed, one that models the radiation heat exchange among all surfaces in one enclosure (Cavity Model 1), and another that employs multiple radiation enclosures with each considering the surfaces at one axial level (Cavity Model 2). This updated RELAP5 deck was benchmarked with single-phase test data to tune form loss coefficients of the elbows and tees, along with heat transfer coefficients within the cavity and off the external insulation panels. This tuned model was then found to accurately predict fluid temperatures within 2.5% and both system and riser flow rates within 6% during single-phase, steady-state simulations. For transient simulations, there is a slight over prediction of the flow rate, fluid temperatures, and heater temperatures during the heat-up period, which indicate that the transient heat loss may be underestimated. Following, the capabilities of RELAP5-3D were examined, which feature a conduction enclosure model that is not present in the current version of RELAP5-MOD3.3 used for all previous NSTF simulations. As an initial comparison of the two codes, single-phase simulations were run that used similar input decks. The results indicate that the single-phase flow predicted by the two codes was very similar, however RELAP5-3D appears to predict a higher system flow during the two-phase transient when compared to the flow rates predicted by RELAP5-MOD3.3. Furthermore, RELAP5-3D run did not capture the density wave oscillations or geysering phenomena, which are large oscillation flow instabilities observed in the experimental facility. To further the prediction capabilities for capturing two-phase instabilities, Options 55, 57, 58, 61, which are implemented by default in RELAP5-MOD3.3 but not in RELAP5-3D, were investigated. When enabling Option 61, RELAP5-3D agrees well with MOD3.3 in predicting the total system flow, while other options have negligible effect on the predicted total system flow by RELAP5-3D. However, none of these options enables RELAP5-3D to produce the same flow instabilities. For future steps, efforts are currently underway to investigate RELAP5-3D’s different behavior in predicting low-pressure two-phase instabilities. STAR-CCM+ was used to perform CFD analysis of the water-based test facility and provide simulation results for comparisons to experimental data. Efforts first focused on describing the characteristics of flow within the heated cavity. A study was performed on whether possible leakage flow between the two sides of the cavity could substantially impact and explain the results. An additional second assumption was examined which defined adiabatic side walls, so physical insulation structures were added to the models to allow conduction across this outer insulation. The results suggest that potential porosity of the insulation could be a major factor in the temperature distribution within the cavity and should be considered in any studies where it is desirable to know the cavity wall temperatures to higher accuracy.