Limitations in the Use of the Equivalent Diameter

  • Frate L
  • Moretti F
  • Galassi G
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This paper deals with the inaccuracy assessment of the friction pressure loss estimation based on Darcy formula combined with an equivalent hydraulic diameter and a friction factor valid for circular pipes when applied to a square rod bundle. The assessment has been done by comparing the analytical and semi-empirical predictions with two different CFD codes results: CFX and NEPTUNE_CFD. Two different analytical approaches have been considered: the whole-bundle and sub-channel approaches, both for laminar and turbulent flow conditions. Looking at results, it is reasonable to assume that an error in the range of 11% - 23% is likely when using equivalent diameter in the laminar regime. In the case of turbulent regime, the equivalent diameter works better and the error is in the range between a few percent and ~12%.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Frate, L. D., Moretti, F., Galassi, G., & D’Auria, F. (2016). Limitations in the Use of the Equivalent Diameter. World Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 06(01), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.4236/wjnst.2016.61005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free