KINS/RR-1015

CFD
Thermal-Hydraulic Detailed Analysis inside Pipe and
Tube by Using CFD Techniques

2013. 2.

CFD
CFD
.

: CFD

2013 2

CFD

CFD ,

.
3
, CFD
.
CFD ,
. SMART
(Helically coiled tube) (Tube bundle)
, ,
, .

CFD , 2 3
, (Pipe and tube)
.
(1) 3 CFD , ,

, , .
(2) SMART

3 CFD ,
, CFD .
(3) SMART 3 CFD

- i -

 ,
.

.
(4) (Water hammer)

. 1
FLOWMASTER MARS-KS

, 3 CFD .
(5) Orifice-type

3 , CFD

.
.

.
(1) CFD ANSYS CFX

, k- SST (Shear Stress Transport

model) ,

.
(2) SMART 3

,
. 3
,
3 ,
.

.
(3)

.
(Vortex shedding) , SMART

- ii -

 ,
.
2 3
, . ,

.

, 1.37Hz
2.74Hz .
(4)

.
1 FlOWMASTER
MARS-KS ,

. ,
(Cavitation) MARS-KS
FLOWMASTER . , 3

CFX 3
.
(5) Orifice-type 1

. ,
30D (

) 0.1% ,
26D ,
(:

0.5%)

2.0%,

ASME PTC 19.5 1972

15D, 2004 36D .
2004 36D 1972
15D .

- iii -

3 CFD
, , 3
. SMART ,
,
.
.

- iv -

Summary

. Title
Thermal-Hydraulic Detailed Analysis inside Pipe and Tube by Using CFD Techniques

. Objectives and Importance of the Research

CFD techniques have advantages of performing a mutually complementary function
with the nuclear system analysis codes and providing detailed information on local
thermal-hydraulic phenomena. In recent years, the related industries tend to reflect
3-dimensional complex flow characteristics on the design and safety evaluation of new
safety facilities, while paying more attention to CFD analysis techniques. Thus, this
study suggested CFD models for analysis of thermal-hydraulic characteristics in the pipe
and tube ,which are widely used in the nuclear power plant, further carrying out an
evaluation on these models.

. Scope and Contents of the Research

This study aims to develop high resolution analysis techniques for two-dimensional
and three-dimensional thermal-hydraulic phenomena and apply to analyze the local
thermal-hydraulic phenomena of pipe and tube. This study includes the following
contents.
(1) Introduction numerical methods for CFD simulations and classification of CFD
models.
(2) Three-dimensional CFD analysis of turbulent flow and heat transfer in a
SMART helical tube
(3) Development of a high resolution technique for turbulent flow through the
SMART steam generator tube bundle and evaluation of turbulence model
(4) Development of a high-resolution analysis methodology for the water

- v -

hammering phenomenon in the pipeline system

(5) Analysis of flow over orifice-type flowmeter in the pipe and evaluation of the
accuracy

. Research Results
The main results of this study are summarized as follows:
(1) As a result of evaluating various turbulence models, which are commonly
used in the CFD codes, this study found out that SST (Shear Stress
Transport) Model shows relatively favorable results for turbulent flow and
heat transfer in the pipe and tube, and the external flow over tube bundle.
(2) As a result of carrying out a 3-dimensional thermal-hydraulic analysis in the
helical tube of SMART steam generator, this study found out that the friction
loss and heat transfer rate were increased by centrifugal force. Especially, the
analysis results show that the local heat transfer rate on the inner side of the
tube is only one third of the total heat transfer rate, accordingly making the
local temperature greatly increased. This thermal-hydraulic phenomenon should
be carefully observed since it may have effect on the integrity of tubes in the
stream generator.
(3) Flow-induced vibration is one of the well-known causes for tube failure in
nuclear stream generators. Such vibration is created by the vortex shedding
phenomenon caused by the transverse flow of tubes, and in the SMART
helical steam generator, the main direction of flow is designed transversely,
so the characteristics of flow-induced vibration can be considered as important
safety factors.

To analyze the effect of flow-induced vibration, this study

developed 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional CFD models for tube bundle, and
evaluated the methodology.

As a result, this study could accurately predicted

drag and lift forces of each tube. It was seen that the dominant vortex
shedding frequencies could be different depending on the location of each
tube.
(4) The water hammer is the unexpected release and associated shock wave

- vi -

occurring in the pipeline, which may threaten the system integrity by inducing
a great pressure change. This study carried out the analyses by using
FLOWMASTER and MARS-KS codes to represent water hammering in the
various operating conditions. As a result, it was found that in regard to the
water hammering phenomenon accompanied with the occurrence of cavitation,
MARS-KS

shows

relatively

more

favorable

results

than

that

of

FLOWMASTER. Moreover, this study established a basis for future 3D

analyses of water hammering phenomena by developing a CFD model.
(5) This study carried out a high resolution analysis of flow over the orifice
flowmeter in AFWS of nuclear power plant. As a result, the current
installation of the orifice in AFWS needs a more straight upstream pipeline,
which is more than 30D, to avoid the flow disturbance which can cause the
distortion in the velocity profile and to measure accurate flow rates. And it is
also concluded that the 2004 edition of ASME PTC 19.5 gives reasonable but
somewhat strict guideline for flowmeter installation.

. Application Plan of the Results

This study applied CFD analysis techniques to the thermal-hydraulic analysis in the
pipe

and

tube,

and

evaluated

the

methodology.

In

addition,

by

carrying

out

thermal-hydraulic analysis of SMART steam generator, water-hammering phenomenon in

the pipe and the Orifice-type flowmeter, this study provided data related to detailed
thermal-hydraulic behaviors.

It is expected that these high resolution analysis techniques

and the results can be used as reference materials for the related licensing and
regulatory review in nuclear plants.

- vii -

I
Summary v

viii
x
xiii

1 1
1.1 2
1.2 4

2 9
2.1 10
2.2 11
2.3 17
2.4 Porous 19

3 Helical 21
3.1 22
3.2 24
3.3 28
3.4 37

4 Helical 39
4.1 40
4.2 41
4.3 SMART 49
4.4 Helical 51

- viii -

 5 60
5.1 61
5.2 63
5.3 1 65
5.4 3 75
5.5 78

6 Orifice-type flowmeter 80
6.1 81
6.2 84
6.3 88
6.4 95
6.5 101

7 102
106

- ix -


2.1

18
2.2 Sand-grain roughness

18
2.3 logarithmic

18
3.1 (a) Grid system of the helically coiled tube, (b) Grid at any cross-section
of the helical tube

25
3.2 Geometry of a helically coiled tube and flow structure in a helically
coiled tube

26
3.3 Comparison of normalized axial velocity along a horizontal cut (inner wall
at r/R=-1 and outer wall at r/R=1); p/d=0, d/D=0.1, Re=230

27
3.4 Comparison of friction factors with experimental correlations; (a)
d/D=0.08333, (b) d/D=0.04167, (c) d/D=0.02078, (d) d/D=0.00925

28
3.5 Normalized axial velocity along a horizontal cut (inner wall at r/R=-1 and
outer wall at r/R=1); (a) Re=10,000, (b) Re=25,000, (c) Re=50,000, (d)
Re=100,000

29
3.6 Normalized axial velocity contours; Re=25,000, d/D=0.08333

30
3.7 Variation of wall shear stress around the circumference, Re=25,000

31
3.8 Turbulent intensity in the fully developed region, Re=25,000

31
3.9 Comparison of the averaged Nusselt number with experimental
correlation; (a) d/D=0.08333, (b) d/D=0.04167, (c) d/D=0.02078, (d)
d/D=0.00925

32
3.10 Non-dimensional temperature contours; Re=25,000, d/D=0.08333.

33
3.11 Variation of Nusselt number along the streamwise direction, Re=25,000;
(a) d/D=0.08333, (b) d/D=0.04167, (c) d/D=0.02078, (d) d/D=0.00925

34
3.12 Variation of Nusselt number around the circumference, Re=25,000

35
3.13 Comparison of the averaged Nusselt number with the Gnielinski's
correlation

36
4.1 Simonin and Barcouda (1986)

41
4.2 (a) , (b)

42
4.3 (SST k- ); (a) 1/6T, (b) 2/6T, (c)
3/6T, (d) 4/6T, (e) 5/6T, (f) 6/6T

43
4.4 (SST k- ) ; (a) 1/6T, (b) 2/6T, (c)

- x -

3/6T, (d) 4/6T, (e) 5/6T, (f) 6/6T ( )

44
4.5 y ; (a) x=0.0mm, (b) x=11mm, (c)
x=16.5mm

45
4.6 x ; (a) y=0, (b) y=22.5mm

46
4.7 (SST model); (a) mean velocity, (b) mean pressure
contours

47
4.8 (RNG k- model); (a) mean velocity, (b) mean pressure contours

47
4.9 y Resolved Reynolds shear stress (SST ); (a)
x=0.0mm, (b) x=11mm, (c) x=16.5 mm

48
4.10 SMART

49
4.11 2D

51
4.12 2D CFX

52
4.13 2D : 171,600

53
4.14 2D , , t=99.32

54
4.15 ; (a) t=99.32 sec, (b) t=99.44 sec, (c)
t=99.56 sec, (d) t=99.68 sec, (e) t=99.80 sec, (f) t=99.92 sec, (g) t=100.04
sec, (h) t=100.16 sec, (i) t=100.28 sec, (j) t=100.40 sec, (k) t=100.52 sec,
(l) t=100.64 sec

55
4.16 ; (a) tube 1~5, (b) tube 6~10, (c) tube 11~14,
(d) tube 15~17

57
4.17 Power spectrum

58
4.18 ; (a) , (b)

59
5.1 (Samuel Martin, 1983)

63
5.2

66
5.3 : Case 1 (H0 = 74.0m, V0 = 0.691m/s)

68
5.4 : Case 2 (H0 = 72.4m, V0 = 0.739m/s)

70
5.5 : Case 4 (H0 = 70.3m, V0 = 0.826m/s)

71
5.6 : Case 5 (H0 = 68.7m, V0 = 1.197m/s)

73
5.7 : Case 6 (H0 = 23.7m, V0 = 1.023m/s)

74
5.8 3

75
5.9 3

76

- xi -

 6.1 ASME PTC 19.5 1972 2004

82
6.2 1

84
6.3

85
6.4 y+ () FLUENT v6 ()

87
6.5 3

87
6.6 (10)

91
6.7

92
6.8

95
6.9

95
6.10 (10D~40D)

97
6.11

98
6.12

98

- xii -

2.1 RANS , 17
4.1 50

Realizable k-
SST k-

5.1 (Samuel Martin, 1983)

64

5.2

65

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5

- xiii -

88
89
94
94
99

- xiv -

 1
1.1
30
(Nuclear System Transient Analysis Computational Code)
.
,
.
, ,
, 1 0
3
. 1 ,
(Best Estimates) ,
. 3
CFD(Computational Fluid Dynamics)
. 3
, CFD
.
CFD

.
CFD

.
CFD
. CFD
, .
CFD , . CFD
, .
CFD , , ,
.

- 2 -

 1 , 3

.

. CFD
, .
SMART
(Helically coiled tube) (Tube bundle) ,

(Pipe flow) (Water hammer)

CFD , .

- 3 -

1.2
CFD (CFX, FLOWMASTER, FLUENT, MARS-KS-multi
D ) , 2 3

.

. 3
.
.

,
.
.
1 ,
Two-Fluid semi-implicit

. CFD ,
. CFD

.
1.2.1

. ,

, , ,
.
1.2.2

,
, .
.

- 4 -

 SMART ,
,
. SMART
, 3 ,
.

.
, SMART 1
.
1 ,
. , ,
, . 3
2
.
, . SMART
2
, .
SMART 3
(Thermal flow field) . 3
(Subchannel) ,
. 3
. 3
, ,
, (Flow induced vibration) (Thermal
fatigue) ,

, .
.

- 5 -

SMART 2

SMART 3

1.2.3

,
,
.
, ,
, , ,
(NUREG-0927, 1984).
, ,
, .
1 Flowmaster
KINS MARS-KS

. , CFD
ANSYS CFX 3 .

.
,
.
,
,
.
(Fully developed flow) , ASME
PTC 19.5 1972 2004

- 6 -

 3 CFD . 1

,
.

- 7 -

- 8 -

 2
2.1
, , ,
, .
, (Turbulent fluctuations)

. Navier Stokes
Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes(RANS)
,
.
(Reynolds stresses)
(Closure), .

.

(2.1)

(2.2)

,
URANS(Unsteady
Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes equations) .

(2.3)

- 9 -

(2.4)

(2.5)

(2.4)
, . (2.5)

turbulence thermal flux
.
, .

2.2

,

Eddy viscosity(or turbulence viscosity)

Reynolds stress . Eddy viscosity

Zero
equation , One equation , Two equation . Reynolds
stress Reynolds stresses (Dissipation term)

Eddy viscosity
.
2.2.1 Eddy viscosity
Eddy viscosity Reynolds stresses

(Mean Velocity Gradient) Eddy viscosity Eddy viscosity

hypothesis .

- 10 -

(2.6)

eddy viscosity, .
eddy viscosity hypothesis eddy
diffusivity hypothesis ,

eddy diffusivity , .

(2.7)

eddy diffusivity , .

Pr

(2.8)

Pr turbulent Prandtl, eddy diffusivity Pr

.
Eddy viscosity
. 1920 Prandtl eddy viscosity ( )
, ,
, Zero equation .
, k
, eddy viscosity One
equation .
Two equation

, eddy diffusivity
. k , k- . Two equation
.

- 11 -

2.2.1.1 k-
k- k

, . k-
Eddy viscosity k .

(2.9)

0.09 . k
2 (k-equation, -equation)
.

(2.10)

(2.11)

k- (Standard k- model)
.

1.44

1.92

1.0

1.3

k-

Navier Stokes
.

k-

. ,

.

- 12 -

2.2.1.2 RNG k-
RNG k- RNG(Re-normalization group theory)

( ) () , (2.12), (2.13)
Standard k- . ()
, RNG k-
Standard k-
.

(2.12)

(2.13)

() ( ) .

(2.14)

, , .

2.2.1.3 Realizable k-
Realizable k-

Standard k-
.

(2.15)

- 13 -

2.2.1.4 k-
k- Reynolds

. k- eddy viscosity
.

(2.16)

Wilcox k- .

(2.17)

(2.18)

0.09

5/9

0.075

Wilcox k- free stream .

outer region k-
k- (BSL k- ) Menter .
BSL k-
, BSL
. eddy viscosity
, SST(shear stress transport) Menter
.

max

(2.19)

- 14 -

 blending .

2.2.1.5. SST k-
SST(shear stress transport) k- Wilcox k- k-

, k- , k-
.

2.2.2 Reynolds Stress Turbulence

eddy viscosity hypothesis

6 Reynolds stress tensor ()
. Reynolds stress tensor .

(2.20)

RST

. 3 , ,
. ,
.
RST Two-equation
.
,
2.1 .

- 15 -

 2.1 RANS ,

Model
Standard
k-

RNG k-

Realizable
k-

Standard k-

SST k-

,
, ,

jet

swirling

isotropic eddy viscosity

. standard k-
round-jet

RNG rotating stationary

round-jet

viscosities

Low-Re . shear
flow spreading, compressibility

standard k-

.

free stream

free stream

(2~3),

Reynolds
Stress

two-equation

2.3
2.1
.

.
(Wall shear stress) .

- 16 -

 (Wall layer
function).

2.1

2.2 Sand-grain roughness

2.3 logarithmic
, 2.2 equivalent
sand-grain roughness ,

. 2.2
.

- 17 -

(2.21)

(2.22)

2.4 Porous
, Porous
Darcys law . Porous
momentum source . CFD
Porous Loss Isotropic Loss Directional Loss
, momentum source .
1) Isotropic Loss Model

(2.23)

2) Directional Loss Model

(2.24)

Isotropic Loss

Directional Loss Loss Coefficients

.

- 18 -

- 19 -

 3 Helical

- 20 -

 3 Helical

3.1
,
,
.
(Helically coiled
tube)

.
2 (Secondary flow)
. 2 ,
. 2 .

, SMART(System- integrated Modular Advanced
ReacTor) .

2
, ,
.
,
. CFD DNS(Direct Numerical Simulation)
LES(Large Eddy Simulation)
2 ,

.
(Single phase flow) Re Pr , ,
(d/D) .
Nusselt
,

- 21 -

 .


. Re
(d/D)
ANSYS CFX-13 .
,

.
1 (RELAP5, MARS-KS )
.

- 22 -

3.2
3.2.1

RANS
.

, i=1, 2, 3

(3.1)

(3.2)

(3.3)

CFX
. (T0)
, (no-slip condition) (constant heat flux,
qw) . 3.1

(structured grid) ,
6,555 , 320
2,097,600 . (Low
Reynolds Number Model)

r+ 2.0 .
3.2.2

3.2 .
2
, Reynolds , ,

- 23 -

 . (p) p/d=1.667 , Re
d/D .

3.1 (a) Grid system of the helically coiled tube, (b) Grid at any cross-section
of the helical tube

10,000, 25,000, 50,000, 100,000 Re (d/D)

0.08333, 0.04167, 0.02078, 0.00925
. (L)
L/d=150 , Prandtl 0.91.

- 24 -

D/2

I
p

(a)

(b)

3.2 Geometry of a helically coiled tube and flow structure in a helically

coiled tube

3.2.3

CFD .
CFD k-, RSM- (second order Reynolds
stress- model), k-, k-

SST . ,
. Spalart and Shur Two-equation

, . CFX
Spalart and Shur , .

, CFX 0
, d/D=0.1 (toroidal pipe) ,
DNS . 3.3
DNS .

- 25 -

20

XX X
X
X
X
X
X
X
++
+
+
+
+
+
X
+
+
+
+
+
X X++++
++X
X
+
+X
X X+++
X
XX

15
X+

Us /u

X+
X+
X+
X++

10

XX
++
X+X+++
X
X ++

X +
X + ++
X
+++
+
+
X
+
X+
5 ++X+X+
+X
+
X
++
+X
+
+
X
+
+
X
+
0 +X

-1

-0.5

+X
+
+X
+
+X
SST-CC
X
+
X
SST
+
+
RSM-w
X
DNS, case A (Boersma, 1997) ++X
DNS, case B (Boersma, 1997) +X
DNS(Huttl and Friedrich, 2001)+X
+
X
+

XX
X+ +
X
++

+
X

r/R

0.5

3.3 Comparison of normalized axial velocity along a horizontal cut (inner wall
at r/R=-1 and outer wall at r/R=1); p/d=0, d/D=0.1, Re=230

, Boersma case A Httl and Friedrich

DNS (random number)

, case B .
, Bosersma

.
SST RSM- , DNS

. SST Spalart and Shur

(SST-CC) DNS .

SST-CC
.

- 26 -

3.3.
3.3.1

.
3.4 (Darcy friction
factor) (fully developed)

(b)0.06

0.05

0.05

0.04

0.04

++
+++
+++
+++
+++
0.03
+++
++++
++++
++++
+++++
+++++
0.02
++++++
++++++++

0.01

Re

100000

(a) 0.06

++
+++
+++
+++
+++
0.03
+++
++++
++++
++++
+++++
+++++
0.02
++++++
+++++++
+

0.01

200000

Re

100000

200000

0.05

0.05

0.04

0.04

++
+++
+++
+++
+++
0.03
+++
++++
++++
++++
+++++
+++++
0.02
++++++
+++++++
+

++
+++
+
+++
+++
+++
0.03
+++
++++
++++
++++
+++++
+++++
0.02
++++++
+++++++
+

0.01

Re

100000

(d)0.06

(c) 0.06

200000

Present
White (1932)
Ito (1959)
Srinivasan et al. (1968)
Mishra and Gupta (1979)
Ali (2001)
Straight tube

0.01

Re

100000

200000

3.4 Comparison of friction factors with experimental correlations;

(a) d/D=0.08333, (b) d/D=0.04167, (c) d/D=0.02078, (d) d/D=0.00925

3.4 Re (d/D)
, d/D
2
.

- 27 -

 3.5
. Re d/D ,
, .
Re , ,
.

1.5

1.5

(a)

(b)
Us/Ub

Us/Ub

0.5

0.5

0
-1

-0.5

0.5

r/R

0
-1

1.5

-0.5

0.5

r/R

1.5

(c)

(d)
Us/Ub

Us/Ub

0.5

0.5

0
-1

-0.5

r/R

0.5

d/D=0.08333
d/D=0.04167
d/D=0.02078
d/D=0.00925

0
-1

-0.5

r/R

0.5

3.5 Normalized axial velocity along a horizontal cut (inner wall at r/R=-1 and
outer wall at r/R=1); (a) Re=10,000, (b) Re=25,000, (c) Re=50,000, (d) Re=100,000

3.6 (s) (Us/Ub)

. 2.36d ,
, .
s/d ,

2 ,

- 28 -

 . s/d 40

.

3.6 Normalized axial velocity contours; Re=25,000, d/D=0.08333

3.7 Re=25,000
. d/D , ,
(straight tube) .
d/D=0.02078, d/D=0.00925 , d/D

,
. d/D
.

- 29 -

0.5
Straight tube

tw [Pa]

0.4
0.3
0.2
d/D=0.08333
d/D=0.04167
d/D=0.02078
d/D=0.00925

0.1
0

50

100

150

q O

200

250

300

350

3.7 Variation of wall shear stress around the circumference, Re=25,000

d/D=0.08333

d/D=0.04167

d/D=0.02078

d/D=0.00925

3.8 Turbulent intensity in the fully developed region, Re=25,000

3.8 Re=25,000 .
,
. d/D
d/D
. d/D ,
.

- 30 -

3.3.2

2 ,
. 2
.
3.9 Nusselt

. Re
Nu (Nusselt number) . Nu
.

(3.4)

(3.5)

(b)

400

300

200

200

100

Re

100000

100

200000

Re

(d)

400

400

300

300

200

200

NuD

NuD

(c)

400

300

NuD

NuD

(a)

100

Re

100000

200000

100000

200000

Present
Rogers and Mayhew (1964)

100

Re

100000

200000

3.9 Comparison of the averaged Nusselt number with experimental

correlation; (a) d/D=0.08333, (b) d/D=0.04167, (c) d/D=0.02078, (d) d/D=0.00925

- 31 -

 d/D Nusselt (6) Roger and Mayhew

.

(3.6)

3.10 (= )
. 6 s/d
,
2 .
, . 3.10
,

.

3.10 Non-dimensional temperature contours; Re=25,000, d/D=0.08333

- 32 -

 3.11 Nusselt ,
Nusselt . s/d=30
2
,
.
,
d/D=0.08333 , 1/3 ,

200

200

(a)

(b)
NuD

150

NuD

150
100

100

50

50

20

40

s/d

60

80

100

200

20

40

s/d

60

80

100

200

(c)

(d)

Inner
Outer
Average

NuD

150

NuD

150
100

100

50
0

50

20

40

s/d

60

80

100

20

40

s/d

60

80

100

3.11 Variation of Nusselt number along the streamwise direction, Re=25,000;

(a) d/D=0.08333, (b) d/D=0.04167, (c) d/D=0.02078, (d) d/D=0.00925

3.12 Re=25,000 Nusselt

. d/D =140
. d/D=0.00925 , 3

- 33 -

 . d/D

.

150
Straight tube

NuD

100

d/D=0.08333
d/D=0.04167
d/D=0.02078
d/D=0.00925

50

50

100

150

qO

200

250

300

350

3.12 Variation of Nusselt number around the circumference, Re=25,000

(Reynolds
analogy) . Gnielinski

(3.7)
, 3.13
. (3.7)
.

Pr

- 34 -

(3.7)

600
400

NuD

200

200

400

600

NuG
3.13 Comparison of the averaged Nusselt number with the Gnielinski's
correlation

- 35 -

3.4.
RANS
(d/D) Re .

.
,
.

.
SMART

.

. ,

.

- 36 -

- 37 -

 4 Helical

- 38 -

 4 Helical

4.1

.
, ,
, (Vortex Shedding)
, Acoustic resonance .
.

,

. sleeving
,
, .
, ECT
(eddy-current test) ,

. , SMART
,
, (cross flow)
.
,
.

CFD ,
. SMART 3
.

- 39 -

4.2
4.2.1

. 3 SMART
,
.
4.1 Simonin & Barcouda (1986)
. 7 45mm ,
1.06m/s . 21.7mm
, Reynolds 18,000.

4.1 Simonin and Barcouda (1986)

- 40 -

 4.2 (a) CFD .

, ,
. Karman vortex ,
.
URANS ,
2 .

(a)

(b)

4.2 (a) , (b)

, (Periodic
condition) , (symmetry) .

35,400 , 4.2 (b)

. 0.004mm ,
(friction velocity) y+=~1.5 .
CFD ,
SMART .
Eddy-viscosity RNG k- SST k-
. RNS k- SST k-
Two-equation ,

- 41 -

 .
URANS .
residual 10-5 .
4.2.2

. SST ,
, RNS k- ,
.
, RNG k-
. 4.3
4.4 (T) SST

(a)

(d)

(b)

(e)

(c)

(f)

4.3 (SST k- );
(a) 1/6T, (b) 2/6T, (c) 3/6T, (d) 4/6T, (e) 5/6T, (f) 6/6T

- 42 -

(a)

(d)

(b)

(e)

(c)

(f)

4.4 (SST k- ) ;
(a) 1/6T, (b) 2/6T, (c) 3/6T, (d) 4/6T, (e) 5/6T, (f) 6/6T( )

4.3(a) 4.4(b) ,
(stagnation point)
, ,
.
4.3(b) .

4.3(d) 4.4(d)
, ,
. /
.
SST k- 20
RNG k-
. 4.5 4.6 x=0, 11, 16.5mm y ,
y=0, 22.5mm x .

- 43 -

(a)

(b)

(c)
4.5 y ;

(a) x=0.0mm, (b) x=11mm, (c) x=16.5mm

- 44 -

(a)

(b)
4.6 x ; (a) y=0, (b) y=22.5mm

(unsteady) RNG k-
, . 4.7
SST , , 4.8
RNG k- , .

RNG k- .
RNG k- ,
. 4.6(a) , SST
, 4.5 4.6
.

- 45 -

(a)

(b)

4.7 (SST model);

(a) mean velocity, (b) mean pressure contours

(a)

(b)

4.8 (RNG k- model);

(a) mean velocity, (b) mean pressure contours

4.9 x=0.0, 11, 16.5mm y Resolved Reynolds

shear stress .

.
SST
.

- 46 -

22

10
20

20

8
15

18

16

10

14

12
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

u'v'/U
(a)

2
0

0.8

0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1

u'v'/U

0.1 0.2 0.3

0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1

2
0

(b)

0.1

0.2

u'v'/U0
(c)

4.9 y Resolved Reynolds shear stress (SST )

(a) x=0.0mm, (b) x=11mm, (c) x=16.5 mm

- 47 -

0.3

4.3 SMART
SMART ,
, ,
.
, SMART 4.10
.
. 8
, 4.1
.

4.10 SMART

- 48 -

 4.1

375

/, mm

12/17

(Coil) ,

17
2

, m

500

, %

10

1 /, MPa/C

17/360

, MPa

15

, C

323

, C

295.7

, kg/s

2090

2 /, MPa/C

17/360

, C

200

, kg/s

160.8

, MPa

5.2

, C

298

SMART
2 3 CFD
.

- 49 -

4.4 Helical
4.4.1

SMART 3
2
, .
2 , 3
. URANS
, 4.2 .
k- SST
. 4.11 4.12 , , ANSYS
CFX . 5

, 17
.
, 0.5 1
2 . ,
(no-slip condition) ,
. .

- , 17x5
- , Dcyl = 17mm
- (x-dir), Px =22.5mm
- (y-dir), Py =20mm
- , R1 = 277.5mm
- , R2 = 660.0mm
- , 0.5

4.11 2D ; x=(),
y=(), z=()

- 50 -

 4.12 2D CFX

2,090 kg/s(
8 ) ( 4.1). ,
Dcyl=17mm, Px=22.5mm, Py=20mm SMART

, 277.5mm, 660mm.
SMART 1 15MPa

323C, 295.7C. , 670kg/m3

, Reynolds 50,000 .
171,600, 4.13 .

- 51 -

 4.13 2D : 171,600

4.4.2

,
. SMART ,
. ,
,
.
, ( ) ( )
.

.

- 52 -

 4.14 .
t=99.32 (x-dir) .
(subchannel), tx7-tx8 tx6-tx7,
tx7-tx8, tx8-tx9, 3 .
tx7-tx8 tx6, tx7, tx8, tx9

.
.
(Eddy) .
, , ,
.

.
, ,
.

4.14 2D , , t=99.32

4.15 . t=99.32 0.12

. ,

.

- 53 -

 4.15
;

(a) t=99.32 sec

(b) t=99.44 sec
(c) t=99.56 sec
(d) t=99.68 sec
(e) t=99.80 sec
(f) t=99.92 sec

- 54 -

 4.15 ();
(g) t=100.04 sec
(h) t=100.16 sec
(i) t=100.28 sec
(j) t=100.40 sec
(k) t=100.52 sec
(l) t=100.64 sec

- 55 -

tube 2 , 4.15 (a) (stagnation point)

, .
, ,
. .
4.16 tube 1~17 x .
() ,
.
(tube 16~11), .

0.02

0.02

Fx (N)

0.04

Fx (N)

0.04

-0.02

-0.02

Cylinder1
Cylinder2
Cylinder3
Cylinder4
Cylinder5

-0.04
40

42

44

Time (sec)

Cylinder6
Cylinder7
Cylinder8
Cylinder9
Cylinder10

-0.04
40

46

42

44

Time (sec)

(a)

(b)
Cylinder11
Cylinder12
Cylinder13
Cylinder14

0.04

0.02

Fx (N)

Fx (N)

Cylinder15
Cylinder16
Cylinder17

0.04

0.02

-0.02

-0.02

-0.04
40

46

-0.04
42

44

Time (sec)

46

40

42

(c)

44

Time (sec)

(d)
4.16

(a) tube 1~5, (b) tube 6~10, (c) tube 11~14, (d) tube 15~17

- 56 -

46

 4.16(a) tube 1~5 tube 15~17

. spectrum
4.16 . 2 .

1.37Hz 2.74Hz . ,
2 .

, 2
. ,
,
2
.

0.0003

0.00025

0.0002

0.00015

0.0001

5E-05

10

20

30

40

50

Frequency (Hz)

4.17 Power spectrum

4.18 . 4.18(a)
, tube 1 tube 17
.
tube 1 17 ,

- 57 -

 , .
tube 1 17

. 4.18(b) , ,

.

(a)

(b)
4.18
(a) , (b)

- 58 -

4.4.3

SMART
, 2
. SMART (, )
, .

, - 2
.
,
.

- 59 -

- 60 -

 5
5.1
5.1.1

(Water Hammer)
.
, ,
, , ,
(NUREG-0927, 1984). ,
,
, .
,
, ,
.
,
.
1 ,
(MOC: Method of Characteristics) .
,
(Cavitation) , Two-Fluid
(Semi-implicit) .
1
,
. 1 (
)
.
CFD ,
( , )
.

- 61 -

5.1.2

1 Flowmaster
KINS MARS-KS
.
Samuel Martin
Flowmaster MARS-KS ,
.
, CFD ANSYS CFX
3D
.

- 62 -

5.2

1983 Samuel Martin
. 5.1 .
102m, 13.41mm, 1.24mm
, .
,
.
.
(vapour
cavity) , .

4 (x/L = 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00) .

5.1 .

5.1 (Samuel Martin, 1983)

- 63 -

 5.1 (Samuel Martin, 1983)

[m]

[m/s]

Case 1

74.0

0.691

no cavitation

Case 2

72.4

0.739

limited cavitation

Case 3

71.4

0.784

limited cavitation

Case 4

70.3

0.826

limited cavitation

Case 5

68.7

1.197

moderate cavitation

Case 6

23.7

1.023

severe cavitation

- 64 -

5.3 1
1 Flowmaster
KINS MARS-KS
.

5.3.1

Flowmaster Two-Fluid (Semi-implicit)
MARS-KS . 5.2
.
. Flowmaster
,
Vapour Cavity Model
. , MARS-KS
Two-Fluid Model

5.2

FLOWMASTER

MARS-KS

Company

Flowmaster(UK)

KINS/KAERI(KOR)

Media

Liquids, Gases

Liquids, Gases

Modelling

1 continuity eq.
1 momentum eq.
1 energy eq.

3 continuity eq.
2 momentum eq.
2 energy eq.

Cavitation

Vapour cavity model

3-phase model

Numerical Scheme

MOC

Semi-implicit

- 65 -

5.3.2

5.2 .
volume component -

. ,

component .
, component , time
step
component .

( ) 5.1
,
.

5.2

5.3.3

5.1 Flowmaster MARS-KS

.
3 .

- 66 -

.
,
.

. 5.3 ( 5.1 1 )
. 5.3 x , L
.
, (x/L=0.25) , (x/L=1.00)
.
Flowmaster MARS-KS

. , x/L=0.25
,
.

- 67 -

 5.3 : Case 1 (H0 = 74.0m, V0 = 0.691m/s)

- 68 -

.
,
.( 5.1 2~4 )
(void fraction) 0.003 ,
.
5.4 5.5 2.1 2, 4 . ,

. , Flowmaster ,
, .
.
MARS-KS Flowmaster ,

- 69 -

 5.4 : Case 2 (H0 = 72.4m, V0 = 0.739m/s)

- 70 -

 5.5 : Case 4 (H0 = 70.3m, V0 = 0.826m/s)

- 71 -

.
( 5.1 5),
( 5.1 6) ,
. 5.6, 5.7 5, 6 .
, 5.6

5.7 . , (x/L=1.00)
.
Flowmaster 5

, 6
.
MARS-KS Flowmaster ,

.
, .

- 72 -

 5.6 : Case 5 (H0 = 68.7m, V0 = 1.197m/s)

- 73 -

 5.7 : Case 6 (H0 = 23.7m, V0 = 1.023m/s)

- 74 -

5.4 3
1 3
. 1 , 3
. 3 ,
.

5.4.1

Samuel Martin 5.8

.
.

5.8 3

- 75 -


. 13.41mm, 102m,
564mm, 927mm
.
. (wave
propagation) ,

. ,
3
.

,
,
100 .
hexahedra element type 118 , 5.9
.

5.9 3

- 76 -

5.4.2
Samuel Martin ( 5.1 1)

. 20C ,
74.0m , 0.691m/s
. 3
. ANSYS
CFX Total Energy ,

CFX Expression .
SST(Shear Stress Transport) k- ,
.
ANSYS CFX High Resolution .
. ,
,
0.1 0.0m/s
. time step 0.0001, 0.9
.

- 77 -

5.5
5.5.1 1

1 Flowmaster
Two-Fluid (Semi-implicit) KINS
MARS-KS
. 1983 Samuel Martin
,

.
,
.
Flowmaster MARS-KS ,

. , MARS-KS

. Flowmaster ,
MARS-KS .

5.5.2 3

3
. Samuel Martin
,
.
3 , 1

- 78 -

- 79 -

 6 Orifice-type
flowmeter

- 80 -

 6 Orifice-type flowmeter

6.1
6.1.1

.
, , ,
. ,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
(Orifice-type flowmeter)

.
, ,
.

,

ASME

PTC

19.5

(Performance Test Code) . ASME PTC 19.5

,
. ,
,
.

- 81 -

, ,
.
ASME PTC 19.5 1972

2004
. ASME PTC 19.5 1972 2004 6.1

. 6.1 1972 2004
2004 ,
. ,
, 1972 15D(D:
) , 2004 36D
.

6.1 ASME PTC 19.5 1972 2004

( )

- 82 -

, ASME PTC 19.5 1972 2004

,

. ,
, ASME PTC
19.5 .

6.1.2

, ASME PTC 19.5 1972 2004
,
. 3 FLUENT V6.2
, .
1
,
.

- 83 -

6.2
6.2.1

1
. 6.2 1
. 6.2
ISO ,
.

6.2 1

, 6.3
. ,
, ,
.
, ,
,
.

- 84 -

 6.3

6.2.2 ASME PTC 19.5

1
ASME PTC 19.5 1972 2004 .

90 , 1972 15D(D:
) , 2004 36D . ,
1972 4D, 2004
7D .

6.2.3
3 ,

. ,
.

Navier Stokes (Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes; RANS) ,

(Large Eddy Simulation; LES),

- 85 -

(Direct Numerical Simulation; DNS) . DNS, LES

, , ,
RANS .

6.2.4

.

.
,
.
, , ,
.
, (Wall boundary layer)
.

. ,
. , (Viscous sub-layer)

. y y+
.
FLUENT v6 standard wall function enhanced
wall treatment ,
y+ ( 6.4 )

. 6.5 .
342,960 y+=40.89(Mesh 1), 1,314,686
y+=0.96(Mesh 2).

- 86 -

 6.4 y+ () FLUENT v6 ()

6.5 3

- 87 -

6.3.
6.3.1

6 2
. 6.1 . k-
4 standard wall
function enhanced wall treatment , k-

6.1

No

Avg Wall Y+

Standard k-

Standard Wall Function

40.89

Standard k-

Enhanced Wall Treatment

0.96

RNG k-

Standard Wall Function

40.89

RNG k-

Enhanced Wall Treatment

0.96

Realizable k-

Standard Wall Function

40.89

Realizable k-

Enhanced Wall Treatment

0.96

Standard k-

N/A

0.96

SST k-

N/A

0.96

Reynolds Stress Model

Standard Wall Function

40.89

10

Reynolds Stress Model

Enhanced Wall Treatment

0.96

.
, , 1
Re = 2.2x105 .
2nd order upwind scheme, SIMPLE (Semi-Implicit
Method for Pressure-Linked Equation) . Standard k-

- 88 -


, RSM
, Relaxation Factor
.
residual 10-6 , RNG k- RSM
Relaxation Factor
residual 10-6 continuity residual 10-3 .

RNG k- RSM
residual . ,
RSM , 10

Relaxation Factor .
6.1 6.3
. 6.2 , ,
(14.2 kPa) .

6.2

No

(kPa)

Standard k-

12.5

-12.0

Standard k-

13.2

-7.2

RNG k-

12.9

-9.5

RNG k-

14.3

+0.6

Realizable k-

12.8

-9.7

Realizable k-

14.1

-0.6

Standard k-

14.3

+0.6

SST k-

14.4

+1.1

Reynolds Stress Model

12.8

-9.9

10

Reynolds Stress Model

13.6

-4.4

- 89 -

(%)

 6.2 , Standard k- (No. 1, 2),

.
enhanced wall treatment No. 2 13.2kPa,

7.2% . RNG k-(No. 3, 4), Realizable k-(No. 5, 6), RSM

(No. 9, 10) . Standard
wall function 10%

, enhanced wall treatment

. k- (No. 7, 8)
1.0% .

. k-
RSM ,
.
. ,

, k- RSM enhanced wall
treatment .
Standard k-

,
.
k-
. 6.6
. 6.6 SWF standard
wall function, EWT enhanced wall treatment .

,
.

- 90 -

(a) Standard k- with SWF

(b) Standard k- with EWT

(c) RNG k- with SWF

(d) RNG k- with EWT

(e) Realizable k- with SWF

(f) Realizable k- with EWT

(g) Standard k-

(h) SST k-

(i) Reynolds Stress Model with SWF

(j) Reynolds Stress Model with EWT

6.6 (10)

- 91 -

 6.7

6.6 ,
. 6.6 (a), (b) Standard k-
, (,
) . Standard k-

,
.
RNG k- ,

continuity residual 10-3

. 6.6
. RNG k- ( 6.6 (c), (d)),
.
.
Realizable k-, k- RSM
, . ,
RNG k-
,

.

- 92 -

RSM RNG k- . RSM

, .
EWT ( 6.6 (j)), RNG k-
.
, . Standard wall function
( 6.6 (i)) continuity residual 10-6
, Realizable k- k-
.
6.7 , RSM ( 6.6 (i))
6.6 (f), (g), (h)
, RSM
.
, standard wall function Realizable k-
( 6.6 (e)) RSM
. EWT
( 6.6 (f))
.
Standard k- SST k- EWT Realizable k-

. k-
k- , Standard k-
SST k-
.
,
, EWT
Realizable k- SST k- .

- 93 -

6.3.2

,
Realizable k- SST k-
.
2.26, 3.58, 4.43 5.54 m/s
. 6.3 6.4
.
Realizable k- 2% , SST k- 4%

.
, Realizable k- SST k-
, SST k-
Realizable k- .

6.3 Realizable k-

No

(kPa)

(m/s)

(%)

1
2

2.26
3.58

14.1
35.5

14.0
35.3

-0.8
-0.3

4.43

53.7

54.3

+1.1

5.54

83.6

85.2

+1.9

6.4 SST k-

No

(kPa)

(%)

2.26

14.1

14.2

+0.9

3.58

35.5

36.0

+1.6

4.43

53.7

55.5

+3.4

5.54

83.6

87.3

+4.4

- 94 -

6.4.
6.4.1

Realizable k-
1
. (D)
18D .
.
6.8 , 6.9

6.8

6.9

- 95 -

 6.8 ,
. ,
,
. 6.9 .
6.9 ,
,
.
,
. ,
,
.
(18D )
.

.

6.4.2

, ASME PTC 19.5 1972

2004 .

, ASME PTC
19.5 1972 2004

10D 40D 2D .
Realizable k- ,
,
(discharge coefficient) . 6.10

.

- 96 -

(a) 10D

(b) 14D

(c) 16D

(d) 18D

(e) 22D

(f) 26D

(g) 30D

(h) 34D

(i) 38D

(j) 40D

6.10 (10D~40D)

- 97 -

 6.11

6.12
6.8 ( 6.8 (a))
.
( 6.8 (b)~(i)), 40D
( 6.8 (j)) . , ,
.
6.8
6.9 6.10
. 6.9 6.10 , 40D
,
. (18D)
, .
30D
0.1% .

- 98 -

 ASME PTC 19.5 1972

2004 2.2 15D
36D. ( )

30D 0.1%
, 2004 1972
.
,
.

2.0%

0.5%

6.5 .

6.5

No

1
2

14D
16D

(kPa)
40.28
40.05

18D

39.86

+1.42

20D

39.71

+1.03

5
6

22D
24D

39.62
39.54

+0.80
+0.60

26D

39.45

+0.37

28D

39.40

+0.25

9
10

30D
32D

39.37
39.32

+0.19
+0.06

11

34D

39.32

+0.04

12

36D

39.27

-0.07

13
14

38D
40D

39.28
39.30

-0.05

- 99 -

(%)
+2.48
+1.91


( )
,
.
, 14D 40.28 kPa,
16D 40.05 kPa. 40D (39.30 kPa)

, 14D +2.48%, 16D +1.91%.

2.0%

, 1972

15D 14D 16D +2.0%

, 2004 30D
+0.19%(30D 39.37 kPa)
.

0.5%

, 26D .
1972 , 2004 .

- 100 -

6.5.

, ASME PTC 19.5 1972
2004 ,
. 3 FLUENT
V6.2 , 1

.
, 6 RANS
. ,

, 6 enhanced wall treatment Realizable k-
SST k- .
Realizable k ,
.
,
.
, 30D (
) 0.1% ,
26D
(:

2.0%,

0.5%)

.
ASME PTC
19.5 1972 15D, 2004 36D .

2004 36D ,
1972 15D .

- 101 -

- 102 -

 7
(,
, ,
) .
(SMART SG helically coiled tube bundle, 1
Orifice-type flowmeter ) .

,
, , ,
,
.
, , ,
.
1) , ,

, k- SST(Shear Stress
Transport) .

.
2) SMART 3

,
.
,
. 3
.
3)

,

.

- 103 -

 2.74Hz, 1.37Hz
.
4)

,
. ,
.

, 3

.
5) 1

FlOWMASTER MARS-KS ,

,
. , MARS-KS

. FLOWMASTER ,
MARS-KS
. 3 CFX 3
. 3
, 1
.
6)

, 1 30D
( ) 0.1%
. 26D

(:

2.0%,

0.5%)

- 104 -

 ASME PTC 19.5 1972

15D, 2004 36D .
2004 36D , 1972

15D .
3
. 3 CFD
, , , 3
.
SMART ,

, .

- 105 -


[1] Ali, S., 2001, Pressure drop correlations for flow through regular helical coil
tubes, Fluid Mech. Res., Vol. 28, pp.295~310.
[2] ANSYS CFX-13.0, 2010, ANSYS Inc. ANSYS, 2006, Fluent Theory
Guide(ANSYS Manual)
[3] ASME, 1972, General Requirements for Fluid Metering: Installation, ASME
PTC 19.5, 179-181
[4] ASME, 2004, Flow Conditioning and Meter Installation Requirements, ASME
PTC 19.5, 64-66
[5] Bardina, J. E., Huang, P. G. and Coakley, T., 1997, "Turbulence modeling
validation," AIAA J., pp. 1997~2121.
[6] Boersma, B.J., and Nieuwstadt, F. T. M., 1996, "Large-eddy simulation of
turbulent flow in a curved pipe," J. Fluids Engrg., Vol. 118, pp.248~254.
[7] Boersma, B.J., 1997, "Electromagnetic effects in cylindrical pipe flow," Ph.D.
Thesis, Delft University Press.
[8] Flowmaster International Ltd., 2011, Flowmaster Users manuals
[9] Gnielinski, V., 1976, "New equations for heat and mass transfer in turbulent
pipe and channel flow," Int. Chem. Eng., Vol. 16, pp. 359~368.
[10] Guo, L., Chen, X., Feng, C. Z. and Bai, B., 1998, "Transient convective heat
transfer in a helical coiled tube with pulsatile fully developed turbulent flow, " Int.
J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 41, pp.2867~2875.
[11] Httl, T. J., and Friedrich, R., 2001, "Direct Numerical Simulation of turbulent
flows in curved and helically coiled pipes," Comput. Fluids, Vol. 30, pp. 591~605.
[12] Ito, H., 1959, "Friction factors for turbulent flow in curved pipes," Trans. Am.
Soc. Mech. Eng. J. Basic Eng., D81, pp.123~134.
[13] Jinyuan, T., Guan, H.Y. and Chaoqun, L., 2006, Computation Fluid Dynamics:
A Practical Approach. USA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 35-37

- 106 -

[14] KAERI, 2009, MARS Code Manual. Vol. 5. Models and Correlations, KAERI/
TR-3872, Vol. 5.
[15] KAERI, 2009, MARS Code Manual. Vol. 1. Code Structure, System Models,
and Solution Methods, KAERI/ TR-2812, Vol. 1.
[16] Kalitzin, G., Medic, G., Iaccarino, G., Durbin, P., 2005, Near-wall Behavior
of RANS Turbulence Models and Implications for Wall Functions, Journal of
Computational Physics
[17] Martin C. S., 1983, Experimental Investigation of Column Separation with
Rapid Closure of Downstream Valve, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Pressure Surges,
pp.77-88.
[18] Menter, F.F., 1994, "Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for
Engineering Applications," AIAA J., Vol. 32, pp. 1598~1605.
[19] Mishra, P. and Gupta, S.N., 1979 "Momentum transfer in curved pipes, 1.
Newtotian Fluids," Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 1, pp.130~137.
[20] Naphon, P. and Wongwises, S., 2006, "A review of flow and heat transfer
characteristics in curved tubes," Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., Vol. 10, pp.463~490.
[21] NRC, 1984, Evaluation of Water Hammer Occurrence in Nuclear Power
Plants, NUREG- 0933
[22] NRC, Combustion Engineering Technology Cross Training Course Manual
[23] Roger, G.F.C. and Mayhew, Y.R., 1964, "Heat transfer and pressure loss in
helically coiled tubes with turbulent flow," Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 7, pp.
1207~1216.
[24] Simonin, O. and Barcouda, M., 1986, Measurements of fully developed
turbulent flow across tube bundle,Proc. Third Int. Symp. Applications of Laser
Anemometry to Fluid Mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal.
[25] Spalart, P. R. and Shur, M., 1997, "On the sensitization of turbulence models
to rotation and curvature," Aerosp. Sci. Technol., Vol. 1, No. 5, pp. 297~302.
[26] Srinivasan, P. S., Nandapurkar, S.S., Hollland, F.A., 1968, "Pressure drop and
heat transfer in coils," Chem. Eng. (Lond), Vol. 218, pp.113~119.

- 107 -

[27] White, C. M., 1932, "Fluid friction and its relation to heat transfer," Trans.
Inst. Chem. Eng. (London), Vol. 10, pp.66~86.
[28] Wilcox, D. C., 2000, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, p.
314.
[29] Wylie E. B., Streeter V. L., Suo L., 1993, Fluid Transients in Systems,
Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA
[30] Xin, R. C., Awwad, A., Dong, Z.F. and Ebadian, M.A., 1997, "An experimental
study of single-phase and two-phase flow pressure drop in annular helicoidal
pipes," Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, Vol. 18, pp. 482~488.

- 108 -

KINS/RR-1015

CFD

()

(), ()

122

( O ), (

2013. 02.
A4

(O), ( )

CFD

, .
3
, CFD
. ,
CFD
, . SMART
,
, ,
.
.

, , ,

BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHEET

Performing Org.
Report No.
KINS/RR-1015

Sponsoring Org.
Report No.
Thermal-Hydraulic Detailed Analysis inside Pipe and Tube by Using
Title/Subtitle
CFD Techniques
Project Manager and
Kwang-Won Seul (Safety Issue Research Department)
Department
Dong-Hyeog Yoon (Safety Issue Research Department)
Researcher and Dep't.
Nam-Seok Kim (Reactor System Performance Department)
Pub.
Pub.
Korea Institute of
Pub.
Daejon
2013. 02
Place
Org.
Nuclear Safety
Date
Fig. &
Page
122 p.
Yes ( O ), No ( )
Size
A4
Tab.
Note

Classified

Open( O ), Outside( ), _ Class

Nuclear Safety and Security

Sponsoring Org.

Commission

Report Type

Research Report

Contract No.

Abstract (About 200 Words)

CFD techniques have advantages of performing a mutually complementary function
with the nuclear system analysis codes and providing detailed information on local
thermal-hydraulic phenomena. In recent years, the related industries tend to reflect
3-dimensional complex flow characteristics on the design and safety evaluation of new
safety facilities, while paying more attention to CFD analysis techniques. Thus, this
study suggested CFD models for analysis of thermal-hydraulic characteristics in the
pipe and tube ,which are widely used in the nuclear power plant, further carrying out
an evaluation on these models. Particularly, this study aims to develop, suggest and
evaluate high resolution CFD models to analyze flow through the helical tube bundle,
water hammering in the pipeline and flow over the orifice flowmeter as well as
thermal-hydraulic characteristics in the helical tube adopted by SMART. It is expected
that these high resolution analysis techniques and the results can be used as reference
materials for the related licensing and regulatory review in nuclear plants.
Subject Keywords
Computational Fluid Dynamics, Helical Tube, Water Hammering, Orifice Flowmeter