The Role of Turbulence Models for Predicting a Thermal Stratification

[+] Author and Article Information
Seok-Ki Choi1

 Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Fluid System Engineering Division, 150 Deokjin-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-353, Koreaskchoi@kaeri.re.kr

Seong-O Kim

 Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Fluid System Engineering Division, 150 Deokjin-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-353, Korea


Corresponding author.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 128(4), 656-662 (May 18, 2006) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2371078 History: Received December 01, 2005; Revised May 18, 2006

A numerical study of the evaluation of turbulence models for predicting the thermal stratification phenomenon is presented. The tested models are the elliptic blending turbulence model (EBM), the two-layer model, the shear stress transport model (SST), and the elliptic relaxation model (V2-f). These four turbulence models are applied to the prediction of a thermal stratification in an upper plenum of a liquid metal reactor experimented at the Japan Nuclear Cooperation (JNC). The EBM and V2-f models predict properly the steep gradient of the temperature at the interface of the cold and hot regions that is observed in the experimental data, and the EBM and V2-f models have the capability of predicting the temporal oscillation of the temperature. The two-layer and SST models predict the diffusive temperature gradient at the interface of a thermal stratification and fail to predict a temporal oscillation of the temperature. In general, the EBM predicts best the thermal stratification phenomenon in the upper plenum of the liquid metal reactor.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Experimental apparatus

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Measured isothermal lines at 202s

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Isothermal lines predicted by four turbulence models at 202s; (a) two-layer model, (b) SST model, (c) V2-f model, (d) EBM

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Temperature monitoring locations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Temporal variation of temperature predicted by four models; (a) location 1, (b) location 2, (c) location 3, (d) location 4, (e) location 5, (f) location 6, (g) location 7, (h) location 8, (i) location 9, (j) location 10, (k) location 11, (l) location 12

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Temporal evolution of streamlines during one period of time; (a)302s, (b)304s, (c)306s, (d)308s, (e)310s, (f)312s, (g)314s, (h)318s

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Temporal evolution of isothermal lines during one period of time; (a)302s, (b)304s, (c)306s, (d)308s, (e)310s, (f)312s, (g)314s, (h)318s



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In