*Manuscript

Click here to view linked References

CFD Analysis of Flow and Heat Transfer in Canadian Supercritical Water Reactor Bundle
K. Podila, Y.F. Rao
Chalk River Laboratories, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited,
Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, K0J 1J0
podilak@aecl.ca; raoy@aecl.ca
Abstract
Within the Gen-IV International Forum, AECL is leading the effort in developing a conceptual
design for the Canadian SCWR. AECL proposed a new fuel bundle design with two rings of
fuel elements placed between central flow tube and the pressure tube. In line with the scope of
the conceptual design, the objective of the present CFD work is to aid in developing a bundle
heat transfer correlation for the Canadian SCWR fuel bundle design. This paper presents results
from an ongoing effort in determining the conditions favorable for occurrence of HTD in the
supercritical bundle flows. In the current investigation, bare-rod bundle geometry was tested for
the proposed fuel bundle design at 23.5, 25 and 28 MPa using STAR-CCM+ CFD code. Taking
advantage of the design symmetry of the fuel bundle, only 1/32 of the computational domain was
simulated. The Low-Reynolds number modification of SST k- turbulence model along with
y+<1 was used in the simulations. For lower mass flow simulations, the increase of inlet
temperature and operational pressure was found effective in reducing the occurrence of HTD.
For higher mass flow simulations, normal heat transfer behaviour was observed except for the
lower pressure range (23.5MPa).
Keywords: Thermalhydraulics, CFD, turbulence, rod bundles, SCWR, Heat Transfer
1.

Introduction

Canada is participating in the GIF to develop advanced nuclear reactor concepts. Among the six
advanced reactor systems chosen by GIF for development and investigation, Canadas
contribution is the development of the SCWR. The Canadian SCWR design is founded on the
experience and knowledge acquired from the development of contemporary, PHWR. Like the
PHWR, the SCWR uses pressurized fuel channels and heavy water as a moderator. However, in
contrast to previous generations, the Canadian SCWRs orientation is vertical and uses light
water as coolant. Within the same framework, the EU has developed a fuel bundle with wire
wraps for the HPLWR a variant of the Canadian pressure-tube-based SCWR. The Canadian
SCWR conceptual design phase is ongoing, and one of the critical stages of the SCWR
development is the fuel bundle design. AECL has committed to a multiyear program divided
into phases with specific objectives to be met in each phase.
SC flows exhibit a unique phenomenon, HTD, which is characterized by lower values of wall
heat transfer coefficient compared to normal heat transfer coefficient. Hence, unexpected high
values of wall temperature can be seen in some parts of the test section thereby indicating the
occurrence of HTD. This phenomenon is absent for the subcritical single-phase flows. Several
experimental investigations have been performed to demonstrate HTD in smooth pipe flows
using CO2, Freon and water. The monogram by Pioro and Duffey (Pioro and Duffey, 2007)
presented a comprehensive review of the available experiments which were mostly performed in
the former Soviet Union to study the occurrence of HTD in smooth pipe flows. On the other
1

hand, significant efforts have been directed by investigators (Elligot et al., 2006; Jackson et al.,
2012) in developing a criterion for the onset of HTD, which has been helpful in identifying the
conditions favorable for HTD to occur. Although an overwhelming number of articles are
available in this area, currently there still exists a lack of clear understanding on:
The pressure dependency of HTE and HTD, and
An HTD onset criterion that can be successfully applied to rod bundles.
Each of these phenomena (HTD, HTE) has a distinct character and exhibit variability between
the cases. This, in turn, presents a challenge for existing correlations (that were generally
developed using a certain set of experiments) to successfully predict the flow and heat transfer
characteristics for SC flows. In recent years, CFD has been increasingly used for simulation of
supercritical flows and has been assessed against data for smooth pipes (Cheng and Schulenberg,
2001; Saha et al., 2013). Similar to subcritical flows, the case-by-case suitability of the
turbulence model to be used for SC flows still remains a topic of active research (Cheng and
Schulenberg, 2001). Due to the availability of the experimental data for smooth pipe flows,
several investigators (He et al., 2008; Zhu, 2010; Gang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2012; Liu et al.,
2013; Angelucci et al., 2013) have tested the suitability of the existing turbulence models to
predict the experimentally reported HTD phenomenon. It was found that the SST k- turbulence
model (Menter, 1994), along with wall y+ set to lower than one, was able to capture the reported
HTD trends to a certain extent. Here it is worthwhile to point out that, although the SST k-
turbulence model could capture the qualitative trends of the HTD reasonably well, the ability to
predict the exact quantitative degree of temperature rise varied amongst investigations. Apart
from using the original formulation of SST k-, attempts have been made at University of
Stuttgart (Zhu, 2010) to modify this model to be better suited for modeling SC flows. Recently,
with an aim to find suitable turbulence models and develop guidelines for using CFD for
simulation of SC flows, international consortiums such as THINS project in EU (Schulenberg
and Visser, 2013) have tested the suitability of the STAR-CCM+ CFD code. The outcome of
their attempts was documented by various investigators (Ambrosini, 2009; De Rosa et al., 2011;
Angelucci et al., 2013) which provided some guidance on the applicability of the existing
turbulence models and potential areas of development in order to improve the CFD capability for
SC flows. In spite of these efforts, a fit-to-purpose turbulence model for SC flows could not
be formulated and remains an area for improvement.
Understanding the possibility of occurrence of HTD in the proposed SCWR fuel bundles is of
key interest to the conceptual fuel design. At AECL, our primary focus is to understand the fluid
flow and heat transfer characteristics for the proposed bare fuel bundle design. The overall work
is divided into phases. Phase 1 of the investigation focuses on the development of a bundle heat
transfer correlation suitable for the proposed bundle design. This is an ongoing task which is
performed by mainly using the subchannel code ASSERT-PV (Rao et al, 2013). Since HTD is
a boundary layer phenomenon, which cannot be dealt with by the current ASSERT-PV, the
STAR-CCM+ CFD code is used for simulating the fuel bundle to determine the conditions
favorable for occurrence of HTD. This forms the subject of the current investigation.
In order to accomplish the objective, a broad set of flow conditions over three operational
pressures (23.5, 25 and 28 MPa) are simulated using a fine computational mesh with wall y+ < 1.
Two mass flow rates, five inlet fluid temperatures, along with bundle powers proportional to the
inlet mass flow rate based on the nominal operating power/flow conditions, are considered in the
2

current simulations. Taking advantage of the un-staggered bundle design, only 1/32 section and
0.4m long bundle is simulated in the current work to limit computational time and obtain
relatively quick solutions. A step-wise methodology along with ASME CFD best practice
guidelines was adopted to execute this investigation. The work presented in this manuscript
presents the first step in the application of CFD approach to the newly developed fuel bundle
design by AECL. In this investigation, sensitivity analysis on the effect of the existing
turbulence models was not performed. Instead, the aim was to use the recommendations made
by the previous investigators as a starting point to judge the capability of the suggested model to
predict HTD for rod bundles. Unlike majority of the previous investigations that simulated
smooth pipe flows, rod bundle geometry was considered in the present study, a subject that is of
importance to the nuclear industry for which publications are scarce. As discussed earlier, the
GEN-IV project at AECL is currently in its conceptual phase (Phase 1) for which the
experimental data does not exists. Hence, the assessment of CFD predictions against
measurements is currently not possible. In this paper, the mesh generation and solution
methodology adopted for the current simulation is discussed in section 2, followed by sensitivity
analysis and CFD predictions in sections 3 and 4 respectively.
2.

Methodology

STAR-CCM+ v 7.04 (referred to as STAR hereinafter) was used in this study instead of the
ANSYS CFD code due to its relative ease in meshing complex geometries, and the flexibility of
power session license to execute on multiple nodes. In addition, participants involved in
international consortiums such as CASL (CASL, 2013) and THINS (Angelucci et al., 2013;
THINS, 2013) have tested the suitability of this code for modeling rod bundle geometries with
complex spacers in both subcritical and SC flows within their respective project frame work.
2.1

Development of computational domain

The fuel bundle geometry comprised of 64 elements in two un-staggered rings and one large
centre flow tube. The surface for the sub-assembly geometries was created using ANSYS
Design Modeler, with the model dimensions listed in Table 1. As discussed earlier in
section 1, to reduce the computational effort, the geometry used in the current investigation was
a 1/32 section with an overall length of 0.4 m (Figure 1).
Table 1 Geometric model dimensions used for developing CAD
Pressure tube inner diameter

0.144 m

Centre flow tube diameter

0.094 m

# of elements in inner and outer ring

32 each

Inner ring element diameter, Pitch circle diameter

0.0095 m, 0.108 m

Outer ring element diameter, Pitch circle diameter

0.001m, 0.1315 m

Length of the simulation domain

0.40 m

The bare rod bundle geometry was created by extruding the two dimensional circular cross
section in the flow direction. This solid geometry of fuel elements was exported into a parasolid
format. The solid fuel elements model developed in CAD was then imported into STAR to

extract internal fluid volume and mesh the fluid domain. The fluid model of the bare rod
geometry was subsequently used for meshing as shown in Figure 2.
The meshing domains (fluid part) for the geometry were developed by extracting the internal
fluid volume from the CAD representation of the fuel elements. The resulting surfaces from this
operation were automatically triangulated and used as the base for discretizing the computational
domain. The initial surface mesh was improved using a surface remesher during volume
meshing.
Considerable computational efforts were required to resolve the near wall region and reduce the
computational uncertainty in capturing HTD. The wall thickness option, which enables a STAR
user to specify the first-node-point distance away from the wall, was selected as the stretching
mode. Boundary layers were used on the walls (fuel elements, pressure tube and centre tube),
with the first node point set to respect the constraint of wall y+ < 1 (typically in the range of 0.6
to 0.9). This resulted in the first node point to be typically set at ~2.7 to 3.2 m away from the
wall. The mesh growth factor was maintained at 1.3 as recommended by STAR (CD-Adapco,
2013).
A minimum of ten boundary layers were used to capture the large variation of fluid properties in
the near-wall region that may contribute to the occurrence of heat transfer deterioration
phenomenon. Three volume meshing models, prism layer mesher, surface remesher and trimmer
option, were used to generate hexahedral cells with boundary layers on the walls of the fuel
elements (see Figure 2). Using this meshing strategy, three computational meshes were
developed for the current investigation, which typically comprised of a total cell count of 3.5 to
11.3 million cells. For the current investigation, the computational mesh to be used was based
on a detailed mesh independence study (described in section 2.4) based on ASME CFD best
practise guidelines (ASME, 2009).

Figure 1 Computational domain for bare bundle

(colors are used only to distinguish model
elements)
2.2

Figure 2 Mesh on a section for bare bundle

showing boundary layers on the
elements

Implementation of supercritical fluid properties

Unlike subcritical flows, the thermophysical properties of supercritical water may vary drastically with
temperature at a given pressure (Figure 3). For all properties, specific heat in particular, it can be seen
in Figure 3 that an increase in pressure results in reduction in magnitude of property variation.
4

STAR has built-in steam tables (IAPWS-IF97) to define the thermophysical properties of water which
are only valid for sub-critical conditions, i.e., conditions below the critical point (22.1 MPa and 374 C).
Consequently, STAR cannot be directly used to simulate flows subjected to supercritical conditions.
Hence for the three system pressures (23.5, 25 and 28 MPa) tested, the SCW properties were obtained from
the NIST online database (Lemmon et al., 2013) and implemented in STAR. Similar to the previous
investigations (Palko and Anglart, 2008; Ambrosini, 2009; Angelucci et al., 2013), properties of SCW
were assumed to be only temperature dependent (under a specific system pressure). The dependency
on the pressure (under a specific system pressure) was usually small and hence neglected. Currently,
most CFD solvers do not include the option to consider thermophysical properties as a function of both
pressure and temperature. In order for these properties to vary simultaneously with both pressure and
temperature, a different approach such as a look-up table may be considered in future analyses.
The SCW properties obtained from the online NIST database were fitted using higher order
polynomials (cubic splines) as a function of temperature. In order to ensure accuracy, the polynomials
were specified in a piece-wise fashion. They were divided into many temperature interval ranges,
including small ranges for the pseudo-critical region which required significant effort. For density and
specific heat, the resulting polynomial equations were introduced in STAR through a GUI hook-up.
The variations of the thermal conductivity and viscosity with the temperature were introduced through
tables as STAR does not currently provide a GUI hook-up capability for incorporating them. The
properties implemented in the current work are valid only for the three system pressures tested. The
procedure stated above should be repeated if the operational pressure changes.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3 Variation of thermophysical properties for SC water at: (a) 23.5MPa; (b) 25 MPa; (c) 28 MPa
2.3

Governing equations and turbulence models

In the present CFD analysis, the finite volume approach was used to discretize and numerically solve
the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) and turbulence model equations simultaneously with
the continuity and temperature form of the energy balance equations in STAR. The turbulence model
equations are presented and discussed below regarding their impact on prediction of HTD. However,
for the RANS, continuity and energy equations, the reader is referred to the STAR user manual
(CD-Adapco, 2013) since these equations are standard and their use does not depend on the choice of
models by a CFD user.
Although a general consensus on the choice of turbulence models for SC flows is currently not
available, previous studies (Palko and Anglart, 2008; Zhu, 2010; Liu et al., 2013; Schulenberg and
Visser, 2013) reported that amongst the existing turbulence models, the SST (shear stress transport)
model can qualitatively predict HTD. Hence, Menters SST k- model with low Reynolds number
5

modification as implemented in STAR along with low y+ approach for the near wall treatment was used
in the present study to better capture the occurrence of HTD in the proposed fuel bundle.
Menter (1994) formulated a hybrid two equation model, the SST k-model, which was designed to
yield the best behaviour of the k-model by Wilcox (for Wilcoxs model formulations refer
Wilcox, 2010) and the standard k-model. This model utilizes the original k- model in the near wall
region (sub and log layer) and gradually switches to the standard k- model in the fully turbulent region
far away from the wall. This switch was facilitated through a blending function. The transport
equations for the SST k- turbulence model are:

k
u j k k t k t ui

t
x j
x j
x j
x j

ui u j

x j xi

* k

(1)

u j t t ui ui u j

2
t
x j
x j
x j
k x j x j xi ( III
)

(I )

( II )

1 k w
21 F1 2
x j x j

(2)

( IV )

The first three terms (I to III) on the right hand side of the Eq. 2 represent the conservative diffusion,
eddy viscosity production and dissipation of turbulence respectively. The last term (IV) represents the
additional non conservative cross diffusion term which is not included in Wilcoxs k- model. All the
coefficients in the model were calculated using a blending function as in Eq. 3. The blending function
was set to a value of zero close to walls (leading to a standard equation) and a value of one away
from the walls (which corresponds to a standard equation).

F11 1 F1 2

(3)

where, 1 and 2 are the two sets of values for each variable listed in Table 2. The coefficient k1 has
been modified by STAR to 0.85 (CD-Adapco, 2013) from 0.5 as originally proposed by Menter. The
blending function was computed as:

F1 tanh arg14

(4)

with:

k
500 4 2 k

arg1 min max

;
;
0.09 y y 2 C Dk y 2

( II )
(I )
( III )

(5)

and, to prevent the build-up of turbulence in the stagnation regions, a turbulence production limiter was
introduced in the SST model as:

1 k 20
C Dk max 2 2
;10

x j x j

(6)

In Eq. 5., the first term represents the turbulent length scale divided by the shortest distance to the next
surface, the second term becomes important in the viscous sub layer and ensures that F1 does not tend
6

to zero in that region while the last one prevents a possible freestream-dependent solution. The
turbulent viscosity was computed as:

1
0.6

max

,
SF
0
.
31
3
S
2

t k min

(7)

and S is the modulus of mean strain rate tensor. The function F2 was evaluated as:

F2 tanh arg 22

(8)

2 k
500

arg 2 max
;
2
0
.
09

(9)

Table 2 Coefficients present in the SST k- turbulence model

Coefficients
for Set 1

Set 1

Coefficients
for Set 2

Set 2

0.075

0.0828

k1

0.09

0.09

0.85

0.5

k2
2

0.856

1*

2*

1
1

0.41

2
2

0.41

*
1

1
k2

1
1*
1*

2
k2

2
2*
2*

Note that in the SST model by Menter (1994), 1* = 2* = * ; 1* = 2* = * and 1 = 2 =

It should be noted that, the wall functions used in the current investigation neglected any
thermophysical property changes for SC water within the viscous sub-layer. Also, to better capture the
near wall effects, low Reynolds damping functions were considered with the SST model.
As described earlier, in the current investigation, the low-Reynolds number modification (low-Re
approach) implemented in STAR was used to capture the occurrence of HTD. The term low
Reynolds number refers to the turbulent Reynolds number which is related to turbulence kinetic
energy and dissipation as:
Ret

k2

(10)

which is usually low near the wall (Menter, 2009) and should not be confused with the channel
Reynolds number. In the low-Re model, some of the coefficients previously used ( 1* , 1 , * ) for the
SST k-model were replaced as:

*
1, low Re

4 15 Ret Re 4

1 Re Re 4
t

*
2

(11)

 0 Ret Re 1
*
1 Ret Re

1, low Re 1

1*, low Re

3 Ret Re k

(12)
(13)

1 Ret Re k

1
9
and =
.
9
125
The three coefficients, Re =8; Re =2.95; Re k =6; in Eq.s 11, 12 and 13 control the rate at which the
closure coefficients approach their fully-turbulent values.
where: 0 =

2.4

Solution approach and models used

In all the simulations, the entrance and exit of the flow channel were modeled with uniform velocity
inlet and pressure outlet boundary conditions. The fuel elements, centre and pressure tubes were set as
solid walls with no-slip conditions. Symmetry boundary conditions were applied along the sides
(Figure 2). A uniform heat flux boundary condition was imposed at the surface of the inner- and outerring elements. The effect of conjugate heat transfer was not included in the current investigation.
Following the recommendations made by Kao et al., 2010 and Liu et al., 2013, the gravity (buoyancy
force) was included in all the simulations to capture a sharp increase in the sheath temperature when
HTD occurs under test conditions considered in the current investigation. However, in order to
confirm the recommendations made by previous investigators (Kao et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2013), a
sensitivity analysis to buoyancy was also performed (refer to section 3.2).
In the current study, the equations were solved using a steady-state segregated solver with Rhie and
Chow type pressure velocity coupling (CD-Adapco, 2013) combined with a SIMPLE type algorithm.
The segregated solver was chosen over the coupled solver because it uses less memory, and improves
solution convergence for some cases. Considering the recommendation made in ASME CFD
numerical accuracy guidelines (ASME, 2009), all the equations were solved using second order
differential schemes. A convergence strategy was adopted for some cases where numerical simulation
failed to converge. First, a fully converged solution was obtained by solving only the flow equations
with URF set to a value of zero. Using the converged flow solution, the energy equation was enabled
and the solution was iterated till convergence was achieved again. The URF values for flow, pressure
and energy were set to 0.7, 0.3 and 0.99 respectively. However, for some of the run conditions,
especially at a lower pressure (23.5MPa) and when the inlet temperature is close to the pseudo-critical
point, it was found necessary to further lower the flow URF to 0.2 to ensure stability and avoid
divergence of the numerical solution.
Convergence was monitored for each run and the solution was iterated till the scaled residuals dropped
at least by three orders of magnitude and fluctuated in a steady manner. In addition, fluid temperatures
were monitored in the cross-plane sections near the outlet (0.38 m) and in the middle (0.2 m) portion of
the bundle geometries. The solution was judged to be converged once the residuals had dropped by
three orders of magnitude and steady-state fluid temperatures at the monitored sections were achieved.
A wide range of test conditions as listed in Table 3 were simulated to test the possibility of occurrence
of HTD for the current fuel bundle design. An overall of 53 test cases were simulated based on the
current test matrix, of which selected results are presented in this paper. In general HTD is more likely
to occur at lower mass fluxes and prior to pseudo-critical temperature (bulk) (Cheng and Schulenberg,
2001). Hence, the current paper focuses on the results obtained for low-mass-flow test cases in greater
detail.
8

Table 3 Test matrix used for the current investigation

Operational pressure

23.5, 25, 28 MPa

0.438, 1.095 Mg/m2-s

Mass flux
Inlet fluid temperature

3.
3.1

300-400C

Heat flux

0.2-1.2 MW/m2

Power

1.97-11.87 MW

Sensitivity Analysis
Computational mesh and wall y+ treatment

The grid sensitivity and effect of wall y+ is investigated as follows. Of the three system (or operational)
pressures considered for testing (Table 3), the mesh sensitivity was performed at 23.5 MPa to check the
accuracy of the computational mesh size used in the current simulations. As seen in Figure 3, the
thermophysical properties (especially the specific heat capacity) vary with temperature more
significantly at lower pressures than at higher pressures. This necessitates the need to examine the
suitability of the mesh size and determine if it can be used for capturing the occurrence of HTD. In
principle, similar exercise should be performed at 25 and 28 MPa. However, at 25 and 28 MPa, the
current study utilizes, presumably conservatively, a computational mesh derived from the mesh
sensitivity analysis of lower pressure condition (23.5 MPa). For the grid-sensitivity study, the mesh
count was increased by changing the base size of the meshes. The mesh refinement ratio between
consecutive meshes was maintained at 1.3 as per ASME V&V 20 guidelines (ASME, 2009). As
discussed in section 2.1, the computational model used at least ten boundary layers on the elements
with the first node point set to a corresponding wall y+ value of ~1.0. The simulations were performed
using the low-Re SST k- turbulence model, described in section 2.3, to capture the occurrence of
HTD. The finest mesh used in the current analysis was designated as mesh#1 followed by coarser
meshes as shown in Table 4. All the three meshes presented a well behaved convergence. As seen in
Figure 4, the sheath temperature did not significantly change for the three meshes. Hence, the
mesh #3 with 3.5 million cells is used as the base case for the current simulations. In this work, the
variation of sheath temperature was plotted along the fuel channel at a radial location where the
maximum sheath temperature was observed. The radial location for the maximum sheath temperature
changes case-by-case.
Table 4 Mesh characteristics and refinement ratios for bare bundle
Mesh i

Total mesh
count (millions)

1
2
3

11.3
6.0
3.5

Average
base mesh
size (mm)
0.22
0.29
0.38

Mesh
refinement
ratio, r
1.3
1.3

Figure 4 Mesh sensitivity analysis for the current investigation at 23.5 MPa
(G= 0.438Mg/m2-s, Q=3.95MW, q= 0.405 MW/m2, Tin=370C)
As discussed in section 2.1, a computational mesh with y+<1 was used based on the findings in the
literature. In order to confirm the adequacy of this computational mesh for the current work, sensitivity
analysis was performed for the wall treatment approach. For the Canadian SCWR, it is planned that
the inlet fluid temperature of the SC water would be set to 350C at an operating pressure of 25 MPa.
Hence, the sensitivity analysis for the wall y+ values was limited only to this operating pressure. For
these test conditions, using mesh#3, high y+ (y+>30) and low y+ (y+<1) wall treatment models were
compared in Figure 5. It was observed that the high y+ model resulted in a flat sheath-temperature
distribution compared to that of the low y+ model which predicted a sharp rise in temperature (Figure
+
5). This confirms the applicability of the low y model for the present investigation in capturing the
occurrence of HTD for the test conditions simulated.

Figure 5 Sensitivity of sheath temperature predictions to low and high wall y+ treatment approaches
(G= 0.438Mg/m2-s, Q=3.95MW, q= 0.405 MW/m2, Tin=350C)
3.2

Buoyancy force

The effect of buoyancy force on the CFD predictions of sheath temperature is shown in Figure 6 and
Figure 7. Buoyancy exerts considerable influence on the turbulence and flow which in turn affects the
temperature distribution. However for visualizing occurrence of HTD, flow and turbulence variation
10

cannot be used directly. Hence, wall temperature was considered to be a key variable to judge the
occurrence of HTD in the current analysis.
For the lower operating pressure (23.5 MPa) and lower mass flux, as seen in Figure 6a, buoyancy plays
a significant role in the predicted sheath-temperature distribution, resulting in a sharp rise in
temperature in the upstream section and a steady decrease in the downstream section. In comparison,
when the buoyancy effect was not accounted for, the sheath temperature increased gradually along the
length, indicating HTD in the upstream section and HTE in the downstream section due to buoyancy.
For a given operating pressure, the temperature difference between cases with and without buoyancy is
larger for the case of lower mass flux than for the case of higher mass flux. The results clearly indicate
that buoyancy is an important contributor to the occurrence of HTD, especially at lower pressures and
lower mass fluxes. Similar findings have been reported for flows in smooth pipes and annular channels
by previous investigators (Palko and Anglart, 2008; Liu et al., 2013; Kao et al., 2013).
For 25 MPa and 28 MPa at low mass flux condition, the sharp increase in the predicted sheath
temperatures were found to be lower compared to that of 23.5MPa. In addition, a gradual increase in
temperature was observed across the length of the rod bundle (Figure 6a through Figure 6c) without
inclusion of the buoyancy force. For all the test cases in Figure 6 and Figure 7, the sharp spike in the
predicted temperature close to the entrance region of ~3 cm can be regarded as a result of the
assumption of uniform flow at the entrance without including a non-heated part that would develop the
turbulent flow upstream of the entrance. Therefore, the spike (Figures 6b, 6c) is judged to have no
practical importance to this study. On the other hand, considering buoyancy force for 25 MPa yielded
a taper off of the temperature increase (at ~0.2m), compared to the case without the buoyancy.
Similarly, for 28 MPa, a flatter sheath temperature was predicted with buoyancy than without it.
For high mass flux conditions at 23.5 MPa, a small step increase in temperature was predicted at
~10cm (Figure 7a) for which no explanation is currently available. For all three pressures, no HTD
was predicted (see Figure 7b and Figure 7c). However, as a result of neglecting buoyancy, the
predicted sheath temperatures were higher in the downstream half of the test section compared to the
simulations that included the buoyancy. Based on the six conditions included in Figures 6 and 7, it can
be inferred that buoyancy cannot be ignored, especially for the lowest pressure combined with the
lower mass flux (Figure 6a).

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 6 Effect of buoyancy at low mass flux test conditions for the three operating pressures
(G= 0.438Mg/m2-s, Q=3.95MW, q= 0.405 MW/m2)

11

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 7 Effect of buoyancy at high mass flux test conditions for the three operating pressures
(G= 1.095 Mg/m2 s, Q=9.89MW, q= 1.012 MW/m2)
4.

CFD predictions and discussion

For the test matrix shown in Table 3, simulation results were obtained using mesh#3 (3.5 million cells)
with wall y+ <1 and buoyancy accounted for.
4.1

Effect of inlet temperature on HTD

Axial variations of sheath temperatures under various inlet temperatures are presented in Figure 8a, 8b
and 8c for the operational pressures of 23.5, 25 and 28 MPa, respectively. These simulations were
subjected to low mass flux of 0.438 Mg/m2-s and heat flux of 0.405 MW/m2 respectively.
As seen in Figure 8a, 8b and 8c, the sharp increase in sheath temperature was more pronounced at the
inlet temperatures 350 and 370C. This increase in temperature suggests the possibility of occurrence
of HTD for the inlet temperature conditions tested. Also, these findings suggest that heat transfer
coefficient was recovered from its minimum (or HTD is diminished) as the inlet temperature was
increased beyond 380C (Figure 8a, 8b and 8c). For all the cases presented in Figure 8, a sharp
increase in wall temperatures was observed at inner ring.
The entrance effects were more pronounced from 380C onwards, resulting in a spike in sheath
temperature close to the inlet. These peaks were absent for the inlet temperatures of 350 and 370C at
all three pressures (23.5, 25 and 28 MPa) considered in the current investigation. This can be possibly
attributed to the sensitivity of the SST turbulence model to the changes in the properties and turbulent
parameters that occur in the near wall sublayer (Zhu, 2010). The boundary layer in the inlet region
becomes unsteady when the inlet temperature is close to the pseudo-critical temperature. This, in-turn,
may result in an observable temperature peak (Figure 8a, 8b and 8c) close to the inlet. In addition, as
explained earlier in section#3.2, the assumption of uniform flow at the entrance without including a
non heated part could also lead to the spike in sheath temperature. Also, nearly at the same axial
location for 390 and 400C, the magnitude of the peaks was found to be lower compared to that of
380C.
As seen in Figure 8b and Figure 8c, for the inlet temperature of 350C a stair-step increase in
temperature was predicted. A possible cause for this increase in the wall temperature can be attributed
to the distribution of fluid properties in near wall cells progressing into the HTD mode in a successive
fashion. It should be noted that the predicted sheath temperatures are higher than the design
expectation of ~625C. This could be due to the use of SST k- turbulence model that tends to
overpredict the buoyancy at certain flow conditions thereby resulting in overprediction of the wall
12

temperatures (Zhang et al., 2012). Also, the conjugate heat transfer (CHT) that considers conduction of
heat through the fuel rod cladding was not included in the computational model. The incorporation of
the wall conduction model is expected to result in reduced wall temperatures without impacting the
occurrence of heat transfer deterioration thereby leaving the qualitative trends unaffected. In an
attempt to address the limitations of the existing low-Re turbulence models in overepredicting the wall
temperature (Rosa et al, 2011), Amoako et al., 2013 used high wall y+ wall treatment instead of
detailed wall treatments along with the low-Re turbulence models. However, based on the sensitivity
of wall treatment approach discussed earlier in section 3.1, low wall y+ treatment was used in this study
to qualitatively determine if HTD could exist for the flow conditions listed in Table3.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 8 Effect of inlet temperature on axial sheath temperature variation (G= 0.438Mg/m2-s,
Q=3.95MW, q= 0.405 MW/m2: (a) 23.5 MPa; (b) 25 MPa; (c) 28 MPa)
4.2

Effect of operational pressure and mass flux on heat transfer

The variations with bulk fluid temperature of the maximum sheath temperature and corresponding heat
transfer coefficients for the low (0.438Mg/m2-s) and high mass fluxes (1.095 Mg/m2-s) at the three
operational pressures are presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10 respectively. In general, deviations from
the normal heat transfer have been found to occur when the sheath temperature is greater than the
pseudo-critical temperature and the bulk temperature is less than the pseudo-critical temperature
(Tsh > Tpc>Tb) (Cheng and Schulenberg, 2001).
At 23.5MPa and at bulk temperature near pseudo-critical temperature the simulations predicted HTD
for low mass flux (Figure 9a) and HTE for higher mass flux (Figure 10a). For this study, occurrence of
HTD at 23.5 MPa for low mass flux is in line with the findings by previous investigators (Cheng and
Schulenberg, 2001; Gang et al., 2011).
However, it was observed that the simulations behaved differently at 25 and 28 MPa when compared to
that of 23.5 MPa. This behaviour was also observed by Kim and co-workers (Kim et al., 2007) thereby
suggesting the occurrence of HTD and/or HTE depend also on the operational pressure. For the low
mass flux at 25 and 28MPa, the wall temperature exhibited a dip when approaching the pseudo-critical
temperature region resulting in an increase in the heat transfer coefficient as predicted in Figure 9b and
Figure 9c. This change in trend is attributed to the HTE for the simulated test case. In addition, for the
pressure of 28 MPa at the lower mass flux, HTD was also observed at lower bulk temperatures. On the
other hand, for higher mass flux conditions at 25 and 28 MPa, normal heat transfer behaviour was
observed (Figure 10b and Figure 10c).

13

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 9 Variation of maximum sheath temperature and heat transfer coefficient with the bulk
temperature (G= 0.438Mg/m2-s, Q=3.95MW, q= 0.405 MW/m2)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 10 Variation of maximum sheath temperature and heat transfer coefficient with the bulk
temperature (G= 1.095 Mg/m2 s, Q=9.89MW, q= 1.012 MW/m2)
5.

Limitations and Challenges

The first step on the application of CFD approach to identify the conditions favorable for the
occurrence of HTD in the newly developed fuel bundle design by AECL is presented in this work. The
simulations performed were for a short domain length compared to the full length of the fuel element
(~6m) primarily to reduce the computational run time and fit within the computational resources
available for this project. The results obtained from this study present trends which provide
information on the possibility of occurrence of HTD at the test conditions considered.
One of the uncertainties associated with this work is the use of a single turbulence model for all the
inlet temperature conditions (i.e. inlet temperatures close to and away from pseudo-critical conditions).
The CFD predictions, especially of the sheath temperature, may change significantly with the use of a
different turbulence model and wall treatment approach. However, given the current limited
understanding of the application of the turbulence models for SC bundle flows, it was decided to use a
turbulence model that was generally agreed upon by previous investigators. It should be noted that the
sheath temperature variations predicted in this analysis are only qualitative in nature and may vary
significantly with turbulence models as discussed above. However, the trends obtained in this analysis
are indicative of the expected heat transfer behaviour for the test conditions considered in the current
investigation.

14

6.

Summary

The possibility of occurrence of heat transfer deterioration in the proposed SCWR fuel bundles was
numerically examined by solving conservation laws of mass, momentum, and energy with the low-Re
SST k- turbulence model and wall y+<1 using the STAR-CCM+ CFD code. In the past, CFD
calculations were performed to simulate HTD in smooth pipe flows; however, limited attention was
given to rod bundles. The results from this investigation provide an overview of the preliminary
attempts initiated in Phase 1 of the project to simulate heat transfer deterioration in bare rod bundle.
The findings based on the current analysis can be summarized as follows:
The CFD model adopted in the current work was able to qualitatively capture the trend of sharp
increase in sheath temperature that indicates the occurrence of HTD.
The results indicate that the increase of inlet temperature and/or operational pressure can be
effective in reducing the possibility of occurrence of HTD.
The systematic analysis performed within this investigation demonstrates the potential of using CFD
for detecting the occurrence of HTD. In the next phase of the project, suitable spacers into the existing
fuel bundle design will be introduced, while performing an assessment of the turbulence models
against relevant partial-bundle experiments that recently became available. In addition, the conduction
of heat through the fuel rod cladding, an important aspect which is expected to significantly influence
the maximum sheath temperatures predictions, will be included in the computational model to
determine the quantitative degree of the temperature rise under HTD.
7.

Acknowledgements

Funding from the Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) through the Office of Energy Research
Development is gratefully acknowledged.
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
AECL
ASME
CAD
CASL
CFD
EU
Gen-IV
GIF
GUI
HPLWR
HTD
HTE
IAPWS-IF
IR
NIST
PHWR
SC
SCW
SCWR
SST

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Computer Aided Design
Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors
Computational Fluid Dynamics
European Union
Generation-IV
Generation-IV International Forum
Graphical User Interface
High Performance Light Water Reactor
Heat Transfer Deterioration
Heat Transfer Enhancement
International Association for Properties of Water and Steam-Industrial Formulation
Inner Ring
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors
Supercritical
Supercritical Water
Supercritical Water Cooled Reactor
Shear Stress Transport
15

THINS
URF

Thermalhydraulics of Innovative Nuclear Systems

Under Relaxation Factor

General symbols
CDk
cp
F1, F2
G
k
k
P
Q
q
Re
t
T
u
y
y+

Production limiter in Eq. 7

Specific heat (kj/kg-C)
blending function in Menters SST k- turbulence model (-) in Eq. 3 and 8
Mass flux (Mg/m2-s)
Thermal conductivity (W/m-C)
Turbulence kinetic energy (m-2s-2)
Operating pressure (MPa)
Power (MW)
Heat flux (MW/m2)
Reynolds Number (-)
Time (s)
Temperature (C)
velocity field (m/s)
Distance to the nearest wall in Eq. 5
non-dimensional distance from wall (-)

Greek letters

Constant in the blending function of the SST model

Constants 1 and 2 in the blending function of the SST model
Constant in the SST k- model
Constant in the SST k- model
Constant in the SST k- model
Dynamic viscosity (Pa-s)
Kinematic viscosity (m2/s)
Density (kg/m3)
Schmidt number (-)
Specific dissipation rate (s-1)

Subscripts/ Over- bars

b
in
i, j, k
k
pc
sh
t

-
8.

Bulk
inlet
velocity components
Turbulence kinetic energy
Pseudo-critical
Sheath
Turbulent
Specific dissipation rate
over-bar used for average
References

Ambrosini, W., 2009. Continuing assessment of system and CFD codes for heat transfer and stability
in supercritical fluids. In Proceedings of 4th ISSCWR, Heidelberg, Germany, March 8-11.

16

Angelucci, M., Ambrosini, W., Forgione, N., 2013. Numerical estimation of wall friction ratio near the
pseudo-critical point with CFD models. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 264, 71-79.
Amoako, E.A., Ambrosini, W., 2013. Developing a CFD methodology for the analysis of flow stability
in heated channels with fluids at supercritical pressures. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 54, 251-262.
ASME V&V 20 Committee, 2009. Standard for verification and validation in computational fluid
dynamics and heat transfer, ASME, New York, USA.
CASL, last accessed on September 2013. Website: http://www.casl.gov/index.shtml
CD-Adapco, 2013. User Guide, STAR-CCM+ Version 7.04., New York, USA.
Cheng, X., Schulenburg, T., 2001. Heat transfer at supercritical pressure: literature review and
application to a HPLWR. Wissenschaftliche Berichte FZKA 6609, Forschungszentrum, Karlsruhe,
May 2001.
De Rosa, M., Guetta, G., Ambrosini, W., Forgione, N., He, S., Jackson, J.D., 2011. Lessons learned
from the application of CFD models in the prediction of heat transfer to fluids at supercritical pressure.
In Proceedings of 5th ISSCWR, Vancouver, Canada, March 13-16.
Elligot, D.M, McCreery, G.E., Schultz, R.R., Lee, J., Hejzlar, P., Stahle, P., Saha, P., 2006.
Investigation of fundamental thermal-hydraulic phenomena in advanced gas-cooled reactors, Report
No: INL/EXT-06-11801, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho, USA.
Gang, W., Bi, Q., Yang, Z., Wang, H., Zhu, X., Hao, H., Leung L.K.H., 2011. Experimental
investigation of heat transfer for supercritical pressure water flowing in vertical annular channels.
Nuclear Engineering and Design, 241, 4045-4054.
He, S., Kim, W.S., Bae, J.H., 2008. Assessment of performance of turbulence models in predicting
supercritical pressure heat transfer in a vertical tube. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
51, 46594675.
Jackson, J.D., Anderson, M., Cheng, X., Zahlan, H., Bae, Y.Y., Yamada, K., 2012. Progress on the
development of new correlations under the framework of the IAEA Coordinated Research Programme
on heat transfer in SCWRs. In Proceedings of ICAPP 2012, Chicago, USA, June 24-28.
Kao, M.T., Lee, M., Ferng, Y.M., Chieng, C.C., 2010. Heat transfer deterioration in a supercritical
water channel. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 240, 3321-3328.
Kim, H.Y., Kim, H., Song, J.H., Cho, B.H., Bae, Y.Y., 2007. Heat transfer test in a vertical tube using
CO2 at supercritical pressures. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 44, 285293.
Lemmon, E.W., McLinden, M.O., Friend, D.G., NIST Chemistry WebBook, 2013. Thermophysical
properties of fluid systems, retrieved September (2013). In: Linstrom P.J. and Mallard W.G. (Eds.),
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithensburg, Maryland, USA.
Liu, L., Xiao, Z., Yan, X., Zeng, X., Huang, Y., 2013. Heat transfer deterioration to supercritical water
in circular tube and annular channel. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 255, 97-104.
Menter, F.R., 1994. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence modeling for engineering applications.
AIAA Journal, 32, 1598-1605.
Menter, F.R., 1999. Review of the shear-stress transport turbulence model experience from an
industrial perspective. International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics, 23, 305-316.
Palko, D., Anglart, H., 2008. Theoretical and numerical study of heat transfer deterioration in high
performance light water reactor. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations. 1-5.
Pioro, I.L., Duffey, R.B., 2007. Heat transfer and hydraulic resistance at supercritical pressures in
power engineering applications. ASME Press, New York.

17

Rao, Y.F., Cheng, Z., Waddington, G.M., Nava-Dominguez, A., 2013. ASSERT-PV 3.2: improved
subchannel thermalhydraulics code for CANDU bundles. In Proceedings of 21st ICONE, Chengdu,
China, July 29-August 2.
Saha, P., Aksan, N., Andersen, J., Yan, J., Simoneau, J.P., Leung, L., Bertrand, F., Aoto, K.,
Kamide, H., 2013. Issues and future direction of thermalhydraulics research and development in
nuclear power reactors, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 264, 3-23.
Schulenberg, T, Visser, D.C., 2013. Thermal-hydraulics and safety concepts of supercritical water
cooled reactors. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 264, 231-237.
THINS, last accessed on September 2013. Website: http://www.ifrt.kit.edu/thins/
Wilcox, D.C., 2010. Turbulence Modelling for CFD, DCW Industries, La Caada, California, USA.
Zhu, Y., 2010. Numerical investigation of flow and heat transfer within the core cooling channel of a
super critical water reactor. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Zhang, G., Zhang, H., Gu, H., Yang, Y., Cheng X., 2012. Experimental and numerical investigation of
turbulent convective heat transfer deterioration of supercritical water in vertical tube. Nuclear
Engineering and Design, 248, 226-237.

18