Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of aerosol in a u-shaped steam generator tube

• Main Author: Longmire, Pamela
• Other Authors: Hassan, Yassin A.
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2010
• Subjects: computational fluid dynamics; turbulence modeling; anisotropy; compressible flow; internal wall-bounded flow; aerosol deposition
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-1333; http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-1333

To quantify primary side aerosol retention, an Eulerian/Lagrangian approach was used to investigate aerosol transport in a compressible, turbulent, adiabatic, internal, wall-bounded flow. The ARTIST experimental project (Phase I) served as the physical model replicated for numerical simulation. Realizable k-ε and standard k-ω turbulence models were selected from the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code, FLUENT, to provide the Eulerian description of the gaseous phase. Flow field simulation results exhibited: a) onset of weak secondary flow accelerated at bend entrance towards the inner wall; b) flow separation zone development on the convex wall that persisted from the point of onset; c) centrifugal force concentrated high velocity flow in the direction of the concave wall; d) formation of vortices throughout the flow domain resulted from rotational (Dean-type) flow; e) weakened secondary flow assisted the formation of twin vortices in the outflow cross section; and f) perturbations induced by the bend influenced flow recovery several pipe diameters upstream of the bend. These observations were consistent with those of previous investigators. The Lagrangian discrete random walk model, with and without turbulent dispersion, simulated the dispersed phase behavior, incorrectly. Accurate deposition predictions in wall-bounded flow require modification of the Eddy Impaction Model (EIM). Thus, to circumvent shortcomings of the EIM, the Lagrangian time scale was changed to a wall function and the root-mean-square (RMS) fluctuating velocities were modified to account for the strong anisotropic nature of flow in the immediate vicinity of the wall (boundary layer). Subsequent computed trajectories suggest a precision that ranges from 0.1% to 0.7%, statistical sampling error. The aerodynamic mass median diameter (AMMD) at the inlet (5.5 μm) was consistent with the ARTIST experimental findings. The geometric standard deviation (GSD) varied depending on the scenario evaluated but ranged from 1.61 to 3.2. At the outlet, the computed AMMD (1.9 μm) had GSD between 1.12 and 2.76. Decontamination factors (DF), computed based on deposition from trajectory calculations, were just over 3.5 for the bend and 4.4 at the outlet. Computed DFs were consistent with expert elicitation cited in NUREG-1150 for aerosol retention in steam generators.