Assessment of CUPID code used for condensation heat transfer analysis under steam-air mixture conditions

Abstract

In this study, three condensation models of the CUPID code, i.e., the resolved boundary layer approach (RBLA), heat and mass transfer analogy (HMTA) model, and an empirical correlation, were tested and validated against the COPAIN and CAU tests. An improvement on HMTA model was also made to use well-known heat transfer correlations and to take geometrical effect into consideration. The RBLA was a best option for simulating the COPAIN test, having mean relative error (MRE) about 0.072, followed by the modified HMTA model (MRE about 0.18). On the other hand, benchmark against CAU test (under natural convection and occurred on a slender tube) indicated that the modified HMTA model had better accuracy (MRE about 0.149) than the RBLA (MRE about 0.314). The HMTA model with wall function and the empirical correlation underestimated significantly, having MRE about 0.787 and 0.55 respectively. When using the HMTA model, consideration of geometrical effect such as tube curvature was essential; ignoring such effect leads to significant underestimation. The HMTA and the empirical correlation required significantly less computational resources than the RBLA model. Considering that the HMTA model was reasonable accurate, it may be preferable for large-scale simulations of containment.

Keywords

• Condensation heat transfer
• Non-condensable gas
• Steam diffusion
• Computational fluid dynamics
• Condensation models