Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
Volume 2018, Article ID 5240361, 12 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5240361
Research Article

Simulation of Turbulent Wake at Mixing of Two Confined Horizontal Flows

“Jožef Stefan” Institute, Jamova Cesta 36, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Correspondence should be addressed to Boštjan Končar; is.sji@racnok.najtsob

Received 30 August 2017; Revised 7 December 2017; Accepted 16 January 2018; Published 19 February 2018

Academic Editor: Michel Giot

Copyright © 2018 Rok Krpan and Boštjan Končar. 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. V. Timchenko, S. A. Tkachenko, J. Reizes, G. E. Lau, and G. H. Yeoh, “Is comparison with experimental data a reasonable method of validating computational models?” in 7th European Thermal-Sciences Conference, Krakow, Poland, 2016.
  2. B. Mikuž and I. Tiselj, “Wall-resolved Large Eddy Simulation in grid-free 5 × 5 rod bundle of MATiS-H experiment,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 298, pp. 64–77, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. J. Fokken, B. Krohn, R. Kapulla, B. Niceno, H. M. Prasser, and A. Badillo, OECD/NEA CFD–UQ benchmark exercise: CFD prediction and uncertainty quantification of a GEMIX mixing layer test—benchmark exercise instructions, Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland, 2015.
  4. OpenCFD Ltd, “OpenFOAM: The open source CFD toolbox,” 2016, http://www.openfoam.com/.
  5. M. Leschziner, Statistical Turbulence Modelling for Fluid Dynamics—demystified: an introductory text for graduate engineering students, Imperial College Press, London, UK, 2016.
  6. F. Menter and T. Esch, Elements of Industrial Heat Transfer Prediction, Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering (COBEM), Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 16th edition, 2001.
  7. F. Nicoud and F. Ducros, “Subgrid-scale stress modelling based on the square of the velocity gradient tensor,” Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 183–200, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. H. Zhang, F. X. Trias, A. Gorobets, Y. Tan, and A. Oliva, “Direct numerical simulation of a fully developed turbulent square duct flow up to Reτ = 1200,” International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 54, pp. 258–267, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. G. S. Winckelmans, H. Jeanmart, and D. Carati, “On the comparison of turbulence intensities from large-eddy simulation with those from experiment or direct numerical simulation,” Physics of Fluids, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1809–1811, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. Prošek, B. Končar, and M. Leskovar, “Uncertainty analysis of CFD benchmark case using optimal statistical estimator,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 321, pp. 132–143, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. R. A. W. M. Henkes, F. F. Van Der Vlugt, and C. J. Hoogendoorn, “Natural-convection flow in a square cavity calculated with low-Reynolds-number turbulence models,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 377–388, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. R. Krpan and B. Končar, “Development of turbulent mixing layer in horizontal confined two-component flow,” in Proceedings Of 29th International Conference Nuclear Energy for New Europe, Portorož, Slovenia, 2016.
  13. J. Fokken, B. Krohn, R. Kapulla, B. Niceno, H. M. Prasser, and A. Badillo, OECD/NEA CFD-UQ benchmark exercise: CFD prediction and uncertainty quantification of a GEMIX mixing layer test—final report, Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland, 2017.