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
Education, Training & Workforce Development
The Education, Training & Workforce Development Division provides communication among the academic, industrial, and governmental communities through the exchange of views and information on matters related to education, training and workforce development in nuclear and radiological science, engineering, and technology. Industry leaders, education and training professionals, and interested students work together through Society-sponsored meetings and publications, to enrich their professional development, to educate the general public, and to advance nuclear and radiological science and engineering.
Meeting Spotlight
2024 ANS Winter Conference and Expo
November 17–21, 2024
Orlando, FL|Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld
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
Nov 2024
Jul 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
December 2024
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2024
Latest News
MIT’s nuclear professional courses benefit United States—and now Australia too
Some 30 nuclear engineering departments at universities across the United States graduate more than 900 students every year. These young men and women are the present and future of the domestic nuclear industry as it seeks to develop and deploy advanced nuclear energy technologies, grow its footprint on the power grid, and penetrate new markets while continuing to run the existing fleet of reactors reliably and economically.
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.