This publication documents the results of an IAEA coordinated research project (CRP)on the application of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes for nuclear power plant design. The main objective was to benchmark CFD codes, model options and methods against CFD experimental data under single phase flow conditions. This publication summarizes the current capabilities and applications of CFD codes, and their present qualification level, with respect to nuclear power plant design requirements. It is not intended to be comprehensive, focusing instead on international experience in the practical application of these tools in designing nuclear power plant components and systems. The guidance in this publication is based on inputs provided by international nuclear industry experts directly involved in nuclear power plant design issues, CFD applications, and in related experimentation and validation highlighted during the CRP.

• 1. Introduction
  • 1.1. Background
  • 1.2. Objective
  • 1.3. Scope
  • 1.4. Structure
• 2. Roles of System Codes and Computational Fluid Dynamics in the Nuclear Power Plant Design Process
• 3. Activities involving Computational Fluid Dynamics in Support of Nuclear Power Plant Design
  • 3.1. Reactor designers
    • 3.1.1. Westinghouse
  • 3.2. Utilities
    • 3.2.1. Électricité de France
  • 3.3. Code developers of computational fluid dynamics
    • 3.3.1. Électricité de France
    • 3.3.2. French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission
  • 3.4. Research organizations
    • 3.4.1. French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission
    • 3.4.2. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
    • 3.4.3. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute
    • 3.4.4. Paul Scherrer Institute
    • 3.4.5. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
• 4. Status of Verification and Validation for the Use of Computational Fluid Dynamics in Nuclear Power Plant Design
  • 4.1. Design applications
    • 4.1.1. Électricité de France
    • 4.1.2. Westinghouse
  • 4.2. Validation gaps and issues involved
    • 4.2.1. Électricité de France
    • 4.2.2. Westinghouse
• 5. Future Use of Computational Fluid Dynamics for Selected Reactor Types
  • 5.1. Supercritical water reactor
  • 5.2. Water–water energetic reactor
    • 5.2.1. Present limitations of computational fluid dynamics
    • 5.2.2. Improvements needed
  • 5.3. Sodium cooled fast reactors
    • 5.3.1. Present limitations of computational fluid dynamics
    • 5.3.2. Improvements needed
  • 5.4. Pressurized water reactors
    • 5.4.1. Present limitations of computational fluid dynamics
    • 5.4.2. Improvements needed
• 6. Best practice Guidelines in the Use of Computational Fluid Dynamics for Nuclear Power Plant Design
  • 6.1. Best practice guidelines for safety analyses
  • 6.2. Specific examples
    • 6.2.1. ROCOM test facility
    • 6.2.2. HAWAC test facility
    • 6.2.3. Vattenfall T-junction experiment
    • 6.2.4. Hybiscus-2 test
    • 6.2.5. Summary
• 7. Summary of Experimental Requirements for Producing Computational Fluid Dynamics Grade Data
  • 7.1. General experimental requirements
  • 7.2. Validation of two phase flow modelling for computational fluid dynamics
    • 7.2.1. General requirements
    • 7.2.2. Extra requirements for momentum transfer under two phase conditions
    • 7.2.3. Requirements concerning the validation of turbulence models
• 8. User Qualification
  • 8.1. General requirements for practitioners of computational fluid dynamics
  • 8.2. Specific knowledge areas
    • 8.2.1. Basic physics
    • 8.2.2. Mathematics
    • 8.2.3. Computer science and numerical analysis
  • 8.3. Summary of training courses in computational fluid dynamics for reactor design
    • 8.3.1. The HZDR multiphase flow workshop — short course and conference
    • 8.3.2. IAEA training courses on computational fluid dynamics
    • 8.3.3. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology short courses on multiphase flow
• 9. Uncertainty Quantification
  • 9.1. Overview
  • 9.2. Aspects of uncertainty quantification
    • 9.2.1. Sources of uncertainty
    • 9.2.2. Uncertainty propagation methods
    • 9.2.3. Methods based on propagation of uncertainties
    • 9.2.4. Accuracy extrapolation methods
    • 9.2.5. Comparison of methods
  • 9.3. The GEMIX benchmark
  • 9.4. Conclusions
• 10. Gaps in Computational Fluid Dynamics Technology Applied to Nuclear Power Plant Design Issues
  • 10.1. Verification and validation
  • 10.2. Range of application of turbulence models
  • 10.3. Stratification and buoyancy effects
  • 10.4. Coupling system/computational fluid dynamics codes
    • 10.4.1. Multiscale and multiphysics considerations
    • 10.4.2. Isolating the computational fluid dynamics problem
    • 10.4.3. Direct coupling of system codes with computational fluid dynamics codes
  • 10.5. Coupling with other physics codes
    • 10.5.1. Coupling of computational fluid dynamics code with neutronics codes
    • 10.5.2. Coupling of computational fluid dynamics code with structural analysis codes
  • 10.6. Computing power limitations
• 11. CONCLUSIONS
• REFERENCES
• ABBREVIATIONS
• CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW
• STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES