ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Division Spotlight
Reactor Physics
The division's objectives are to promote the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the fundamental physical phenomena characterizing nuclear reactors and other nuclear systems. The division encourages research and disseminates information through meetings and publications. Areas of technical interest include nuclear data, particle interactions and transport, reactor and nuclear systems analysis, methods, design, validation and operating experience and standards. The Wigner Award heads the awards program.
Meeting Spotlight
Utility Working Conference and Vendor Technology Expo (UWC 2024)
August 4–7, 2024
Marco Island, FL|JW Marriott Marco Island
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Jun 2024
Jan 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
August 2024
Nuclear Technology
July 2024
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
NRC engineers share their expertise at the University of Puerto Rico
Robert Roche-Rivera and Marcos Rolón-Acevedo are licensed professional engineers who work at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They are also alumni of the University of Puerto Rico–Mayagüez (UPRM) and have been sharing their knowledge and experience with students at their alma mater since last year, serving as adjunct professors in the university’s Department of Mechanical Engineering. During the 2023–2024 school year, they each taught two courses: Fundamentals of Nuclear Science and Engineering, and Nuclear Power Plant Engineering.
Constantine P. Tzanos, Maxim Popov
Nuclear Technology | Volume 181 | Number 3 | March 2013 | Pages 466-478
Technical Papers | Thermal Hydraulics | doi.org/10.13182/NT13-A15804
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
To assess the accuracy of large-eddy simulation (LES) predictions for flow without and with heat transfer in a rod bundle, analyses were performed with a constant-coefficient Smagorinsky LES model, and numerical predictions were compared with experimental measurements in a heated triangular rod array. First, flow simulations without heat transfer were performed with one and two channels at the central region of the bundle, and simulation predictions were compared with the experimental data. For the normalized mean axial velocity and the axial component of the turbulent intensity, the predictions of the one-channel model are nearly identical with those of the two-channel model. For the other turbulence parameters, the predictions of the one-channel model are either identical or are mostly in good agreement with those of the two-channel model. LES predictions for the mean axial velocity agree well with experimental measurements. Predictions of the axial component of the turbulent intensity agree well with experimental measurements for most of the points of measurement. Predictions of the other parameters of turbulence agree well to reasonably well with measurements. Because LES simulations are computationally very demanding, the LES simulation of heat transfer was performed only with the one-channel model. LES predicts the temperature of the rod surface within the range of the experimental error. The profile (log law) of the dimensionless fluid temperature T+ predicted by LES has the same slope as that derived from the measurements, but it has a significantly higher constant. The turbulent intensity of temperature is predicted well to reasonably well. The turbulent heat flux in the axial direction and the radial direction is predicted well at points away from the wall, but there is significant discrepancy between predictions and measurements close to the wall. The predicted turbulent heat flux in the azimuthal direction agrees very well to quite well with measurements.