Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 9542121, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9542121
Research Article

Assessment of Prediction Capabilities of COCOSYS and CFX Code for Simplified Containment

1School of Energy, Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, China
2Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany

Received 4 February 2016; Accepted 8 May 2016

Academic Editor: Keith E. Holbert

Copyright © 2016 Jia Zhu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. W. Breitung and P. Royl, “Procedure and tools for deterministic analysis and control of hydrogen behavior in severe accidents,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 202, no. 2-3, pp. 249–268, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. B. R. Sehgal, “Stabilization and termination of severe accidents in LWRs,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 236, no. 19–21, pp. 1941–1952, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. J. Xiao and J. R. Travis, “How critical is turbulence modeling in gas distribution simulations of large-scale complex nuclear reactor containment?” Annals of Nuclear Energy, vol. 56, pp. 227–242, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. N. Agrawal, A. Prabhakar, and S. K. Das, “Hydrogen distribution in nuclear reactor containment during accidents and associated heat and mass transfer issues—a review,” Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 859–879, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  5. S. Mizokami, D. Yamada, T. Honda, D. Yamauchi, and Y. Yamanaka, “Unsolved issues related to thermal-hydraulics in the suppression chamber during Fukushima Daiichi accident progressions,” Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 630–638, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. D. Paladino, M. Andreani, R. Zboray, and J. Dreier, “Toward a CFD-grade database addressing LWR containment phenomena,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 253, pp. 331–342, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. A. Dutta, I. Thangamani, V. Shanware et al., “Experiments and analytical studies related to blowdown and containment thermal hydraulics on CSF,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 294, no. 1, pp. 233–241, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. M. Povilaitis, T. Kačegavičius, and E. Urbonavičius, “Simulation of the ICE P1 test for a validation of COCOSYS and ASTEC codes,” Fusion Engineering and Design, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 42–47, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. I. Kljenak, M. Kuznetsov, P. Kostka et al., “Simulation of hydrogen deflagration experiment—benchmark exercise with lumped-parameter codes,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 283, pp. 51–59, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. M. Hashim, Y. Ming, and A. S. Ahmed, “Review of severe accident phenomena in LWR and related severe accident analysis codes,” Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 3320–3335, 2013. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. D. C. Visser, N. B. Siccama, S. T. Jayaraju, and E. M. J. Komen, “Application of a CFD based containment model to different large-scale hydrogen distribution experiments,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 278, pp. 491–502, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. St. Kelm, M. Klauck, S. Beck et al., “Generic containment: detailed comparison of containment simulations performed on plant scale,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, vol. 74, pp. 165–172, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus