Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene

Baffle jetting: CFD analysis of plain jets impinging on fuel rods T

a,∗ b
Ulrich Bieder , Alexander Rashkovan
a
DEN-STMF, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, F-91191, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
b
Physics Department, NRCN, P.O.B. 9001, Beer-Sheva, 84190, Israel

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The risk of baffle jetting exists mainly in pressurized water reactors, which are designed with a counter flow
Baffle jetting configuration in the core bypass region. Baffle plates are foreseen between core barrel and core, providing the
Rod failure core's lateral restraint and allowing a core bypass flow. A pressure differential establishes between the coolant
CFD flow in the core baffle and the upward flow through the core. A part of the coolant bypass flow is directed
LES
through the gaps of the baffle plates towards the core. Coolant cross flow through enlarged baffle gaps can result
Validation
in high velocity jetting in the case of significant pressure differences between core and baffle region. These water
jets impact onto the fuel rods and may induce rod vibration that can lead to fuel rod failure.
Modelling baffle jetting induced vibrations of fuel rods is still a challenge in the field of fluid structure
interaction. The present work aims to extend the understanding of the unsteady flow in rod bundles to situations
where baffle jetting occurs. As a first step, the used LES modelling method is evaluated on the example of a well
documented test case related to fuel rods in cross flow: the flow over a circular cylinder at Re = 3900. In the
successive step, the validated modelling method is applied to the CEA PANACHET experiment, mimicking baffle
jetting related phenomena. This analysis helped to understand better the flow field of a corner baffle jet and
further validated the modelling approach.
The flow field in the core baffle corner is finally analysed for realistic reactor conditions. A plain narrow slot
jet is injected parallel to a baffle wall through a 1 mm width gap perpendicular to the axial flow of a corner
assembly. The analysis of the flow field showed that: (i) Swirling flow exist close to the corner rod. The cal-
culated force coefficients lift and drag of this rod show a dominant fluctuation frequency of about 80 Hz. (ii) The
baffle jet impacts on the third rod in jet direction (passing the first two rods without impact). The force coef-
ficients of the third rod do not show a dominant oscillation frequency but show increased oscillation amplitudes.
The distinguished fluctuation frequency detected for rod n°1 and the direct impact of the baffle jet on rod n°3
might explain the rod failures that have been detected for these rods.

1. Introduction between intersecting baffle plates becomes enlarged, the differential

According to NRC Circular Notice 80-17 (1980), failed fuel pins
were detected in two assemblies during the past operating cycle. It was
reported that failed fuel pins were located adjacent to a joint in the core
baffle, and that the failures had resulted from vibration caused by water
jet impingement on the fuel pin, the baffle jetting. Baffle jetting can
occur in reactor pressure vessels (RPV) designed with a counter flow
configuration in the bypass region. In this case, a significant pressure
differential across the baffle plate is established. Fig. 1a shows sche-
matically such counter courant flow in the core baffle. Fig. 1b presents a
horizontal cut plane of the RPV internal structure. The fuel assemblies,
which can be affected by baffle jetting (cross × marked in Fig. 1b), are
located in the periphery of the core, adjacent to the core baffle. If a gap
pressure across the baffle plate creates a water jet that impinges on
adjacent fuel rods. As shown in Fig. 1c, this jet can impinge onto the
fuel rods either tangentially, forming corner baffle jets, or perpendicu-
larly, forming central baffle jets. This water jet impingement causes flow
induced vibration and can potentially result in fuel rods damage.
The IAEA-TECDOC-1119 (1999) summarized that at the beginning
of the 1980s, jets of water through the baffles created damage to the
fuel elements in various power plants all over the world (six in France
including Bugey 2 and Fessenheim 2). This effect was related to the
pressure difference between the baffles with water down flow in this
location. Modifications in the baffle formers (see Fig. 1a), assuring
water up flow have reduced the pressure and suppressed baffle jetting.
This modification was later implemented practically in all reactors of

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ulrich.bieder@cea.fr (U. Bieder).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2019.02.006
Received 28 September 2018; Received in revised form 13 February 2019; Accepted 26 February 2019
0149-1970/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan
Fig. 1. Formation of baffle jets: Downward baffle flow in (a), location of potentially affected fuel assemblies in (b) and schematics of baffle jets impinging on fuel rods
in (c).
relevant design. For instance, Framatome converted the reactor lower
internals of the Tihange 1 pressurized water reactor in Belgium from a
down flow to an up flow configuration in September 1986.
Nevertheless, in recent years, several incidents related to baffle
jetting were reported. The Slovenian Nuclear Energy Administration
reported in 2013 that the Krško nuclear power plant and the fuel sup-
plier (Westinghouse) consider that the damage to the fuel rods at the
outer edge of the core has occurred mainly due to the stream of water at
the reactor baffle plates, which caused excessive vibration of fuel pins.
Small cracks were detected on the pin surface through which the pri-
mary coolant system water has penetrated the fuel sheath (primary
damage). Two nuclear fuel rods were found damaged during North
Anna power plant refuelling in 2014 (Licensee Event Report No. 50-
339/2014-002-00). The fuel pellet loss occurred because of baffle jet-
ting on the fuel assembly. The affected fuel rods had their top springs
dislodged and fuel pellets were able to escape the fuel rod. Fragments of
fuel pellets were found within the associated fuel assembly and on the
core plate.
Baffle jetting is not classified as a significant safety risk, as the in-
creased radiation level due to clad damage can be easily detected and
enclosed in the primary circuit. Additionally, the formation of baffle
jets and the associated fuel rod vibrations are detectable in the signals
of the neutronic noise (Bernard et al., 1985). However, following fuel
pins damage, significant costs can arise from cleaning and fuel re-
placement actions. Nevertheless, only little research was performed to
better understand the phenomena of rod failure associated with baffle
jetting.
Uniform cross flow induced vibrations, being usually encountered in
heat exchanger tube bundles (e.g. in shell and tube heat exchangers),
were extensively investigated in the past and the vibration mechanisms
are well understood (see e.g. Tanaka and Takahara, 1981). The phe-
nomena of heat exchanger tube bundles vibrations and those in the
nuclear fuel rod bundles assemblies baffle jets induced vibration differ
in a number of ways. The velocity (5–10 m/s) of the flow impinging
onto the fuel rods is not uniform in the cross section (0.5–1 mm). Hence,
the fuel rod behaviour is dependent on the jet-to-rod relative location.
The shape of the jet velocity profile will greatly affect the emerged flow
induced vibration (Seki et al., 1986). Additionally, as the baffle jets are
not exclusively directed in the direction normal to the fuel rods axis, the
resulted flow situation is complicated by the combination of the in-
teraction of both cross and axially directed coolant flow with the rods in
the fuel assemblies situated in the periphery of the reactor pressure
vessel, close to the core baffle plates.
32
Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45
CEA has initiated the experimental program CHRISTINE to better
understand the combined action of axial and cross flow on the vibration
excitation of fuel rods (Boulanger et al., 1997). Baffle jetting was found
to induce early large vibratory amplitudes of fuel rods at low turbulence
kinetic energy levels and thus failure from fretting wear (Tekatlian
et al., 1999). The PANACHET single effect analytical experiment was
set up in 1996 in support to the CHRISTINE program (Jacques et al.,
1997) in order to better understand early, large amplitude, vibratory
instability. Numerical analysis with CFD was associated to the PANA-
CHET program (Jacques, 1999).
In the study on local cross flow induced vibrations, it was shown
that vibration mechanisms are very similar to those observed in uni-
form cross flow (Fujita et al., 1990). However, additional vibration
mechanisms can appear, which are related to the small jet width
(Fujita, 2009). The jet position has proved to have a major influence on
vibratory amplitude (Seki et al., 1986). Although the axial flow tends to
stabilise the tube array vibrations, it was shown that when rod arrays
are subjected to both cross flow and uniform steady axial flow, a fluid-
elastic instability can occur.
Baffle jetting flow induced vibration of fuel rods is still a challenge
in the field of fluid structure interaction. The present work aims to
extend the understanding of the unsteady flow field near fuel rods
subjected to baffle jetting. The study is thus dealing with predicting the
complicated flow field around tube bundle in situations mimicking the
real life nuclear reactor geometry features. Therefore, in a first step, the
numerical and physical model is evaluated on the example of a well
documented test case related to fuel rods in cross flow: the flow around
a circular cylinder at Re = 3900. Then, the validated calculation
method is applied to the PANACHET experiment (jet Reynolds number:
5000–10000). In this context, the flow field of a corner baffle jet is
analysed and calculation results are compared to the experiment.
Finally, the flow field under realistic reactor conditions is discussed and
pressure coefficients are evaluated for two rods (jet Reynolds number:
50000).
2. The numerical scheme
The fluid is assumed to be Newtonian, incompressible and the flow
is treated as turbulent. The flow around the fuel rods is described using
large eddy simulation (LES) (see e.g. Sagaut, 2001; Pope, 2000). The
application of a filtering operation (symbolised by ∼) to the equation of
mass conservation and Navier–Stokes equations gives:
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan
Fig. 2. Cylinder test case: boundary condition and meshing in (a) and zoom to the mesh on the cylinder wall in (b).
∇⋅ũ = 0 (1)
∂u˜ 1
+ (u˜ ⋅∇) u˜ = − ∇P˜ + ∇⋅((υ + υt )⋅(∇u˜ + ∇T u˜))
∂t ρ (2)
In this study, ũ is the filtered velocity vector and P̃ is the filtered
pressure. Filtering is implicit; the cut-off length is the grid characteristic
size Δx. Scales smaller than Δx are not resolved. Only their effect on the
resolved, larger than Δx scales, is taken into account by the sub-grid
scale tensor. As in most LES models, the sub-grid scale tensor is ex-
pressed by using the concept of eddy viscosity with the definition of the
turbulent viscosity νt. The first model applied is of Smagorinsky (1963),
that gives the classical expression of νt. Nicoud and Ducros (1999) have
shown that this model suffers from severe limitations near walls, in
shear layers and in the turbulence transition process. Thus, their wall-
adapting local eddy-viscosity model WALE (Nicoud and Ducros, 1999)
is used in this study.
Simulations are performed using the TrioCFD code (Angeli et al.,
2015; TrioCFD), developed at the French Alternative Energies and
Atomic Energy Commission (CEA). Angeli et al. (2017) have demon-
strated the accuracy of the discretisation scheme employed in TrioCFD.
Eqs. (1) and (2) are solved using the pressure projection method of Hirt
et al. (1975). Time marching is explicit and relies on the classical 2nd
order Adams-Bashforth method. A finite element based finite volume
method is used for spatial discretisation on tetrahedral elements with
non-conforming P1 elements for velocity components that are located
in the centres of the faces of an element. Conforming P0/P1 elements
are used for pressure discretisation where the pressure nodes are lo-
cated in both centres and vertices of an element (Angeli et al., 2017).
This discretisation may be viewed as a generalization of the Marker and
Cell (MAC) method of Harlow and Welch (1965) for unstructured me-
shes. The MAC method is very well suited for incompressible flows
(Ferziger and Peric, 1997) being both accurate and stable. In particular,
the method does not suffer from spurious node-to-node pressure modes
(Fortin, 2006). Convection terms are handled with an adaptation of the
flux corrected transport formulation of Kuzmin and Turek (2002).
Ducros et al. (2010) have reported the main features of this formula-
tion. The resulting convection scheme (called ef_stab) is both robust and
accurate since a minimal amount of numerical diffusion is added to
ensure the computation stability of the centred scheme (Kuzmin and
Turek, 2002). In this work, the critical time step depends on the con-
vection operator for which the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy (CFL) number
is set to 0.8. Bieder and Rodio (2019) presented more information of the
numerical scheme. Bieder et al. (2015) has discussed the code realiza-
tion on High Performance parallel Computers.
3. Evaluation of methodology for large eddy silmulations
High quality experimental data are not available to evaluate a LES
modelling strategy applicable to corner baffle jets. Guidelines for such
calculation methodology are developed and evaluated for a physically
33
Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45
related geometry: a circular cylinder in cross flow. One of the best
documented cylinder experiments, which has been analysed with a
wide range of modelling approaches and numerical methods, is that for
Reynolds number Re=3900 (Norberg, 1987; Wallace and Ong, 1996;
Parnaudeau et al., 2008). This flow was analysed with LES by boundary
fitted curvilinear and unstructured finite volume methods (Breuer,
1998; Afgan et al., 2011), spectral methods (Kravchenko and Moin,
2000) and discontinuous Galerkin methods (De La Llave Plata et al.,
2017).
Turbulent flows past bluff bodies in general and around circular
cylinders in particular are very complex (Breuer, 1998) including
phenomena such as separation, reattachment and vortex shedding with
large two- and three-dimensional vortical structures. Although the
geometry is quite simple, the flow phenomena are extremely rich and
have been investigated in a large number of studies (Zdravkovich,
1997). Recently, modelling fluid-structure interaction was also ad-
dressed (Gsell et al., 2017, 2018). The flow regime for Reynolds number
between about 2000 < Re < 40000 is called transition in shear layer
(Zdravkovich, 1997). A laminar boundary layer develops on the cy-
linder wall. Transition to turbulence occurs in the wake due to ampli-
fied sheer layer instabilities (Singh and Mittal, 2004).
The unsteady flow around a circular cylinder of diameter D is
analysed with LES using the finite element based finite volume method
described in chapter 2. Concerning the expected quality of the analysis,
it should not be forgotten that the objective of this study is not to re-
produce as exactly as possible experimental values, but to evaluate a
calculation strategy in an engineering framework. Fig. 2 shows the
calculation domain of 40 × D, 20 × D and π × D in stream wise (x-
direction in Fig. 2a), transverse (y-direction in Fig. 2a) and span wise (z-
direction) directions, respectively. The physical properties dynamic
viscosity (μ) and density (ρ) as well as the boundary conditions are
added to Fig. 2. A global view of the meshing as well as the close to the
cylinder wall region meshing are given. Maximum cylinder wall non-
dimensional values of the mesh are of the order of y+ ≈ 2 in wall
normal direction. The mesh resolution in stream wise direction is in the
order of x+ ≈ 10 and in span wise direction of z+ ≈ 30. After various
tests on methods for meshing and mesh refinement, the final meshing
was realized with the octree method of ICEMCFD. This mesh comprises
of 22 million tetrahedral cells corresponding to about 44 million control
volumes for the velocity. The wake of the cylinder was discretized with
elements, which are 8 times smaller (Δx = 0.05 m) than the elements in
the periphery of the calculation domain. Three prisms layers (cut into
tetrahedrons) were introduced close to the cylinder for properly resol-
ving of wall boundary layer - see Fig. 2b.
The vortex street stabilizes after about 10 vortex shedding cycles.
Turbulence statistics have then been collected in the span wise mid-
plane (z = π × D/2) for about 50 shedding cycles. Only time averaging
was performed, without geometrical averaging in span wise direction.
Time averaged velocity statistics along vertical lines downstream of the
cylinder at x/D = 1.06, 1.54 and 2.02 were collected. These lines are
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan
Fig. 3. Comparison of flow statistics to experimental results of Parnaudeau et al. (2008): time averaged velocity < u > in (a) and < v > in (b) as well as time
averaged Reynolds stresses < u'u’ > in (c) and < v'v’ > in (d).
shown schematically in Fig. 2a. The statistics are compared in Fig. 3 to
the measured values reported by Parnaudeau et al. (2008). The time
averaging is designated by “ < > “. Fig. 3a shows profiles of the ve-
locity component in stream wise direction, < u > , while velocity
component in the transverse direction, < v > , is presented in Fig. 3b.
The velocities are normalized by the bulk velocity Uc (3900 m/s). The
temporal mean values of the velocity components represent very well
the measurements. The corresponding profiles of the time averaged
Reynolds stresses < u'u’ > and < v'v’ > , which are normalized by Uc2,
are shown in Fig. 3c and d, respectively. Differences between calculated
and measured Reynolds stresses exist close to the cylinder, as the
34
Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45
meshing is probably not sufficiently fine to resolve correctly the fine
sheer layers. However, when comparing the calculated Reynolds
stresses further downstream at x/D = 3 and 5 to the measurements
reported by Ong and Wallace (1996), a good accordance was achieved
(not presented here for brevity).
The length of the recirculation bubble in the wake of the cylinder is
estimated from Fig. 4a, where the time averaged stream wise velocity in
the cylinder wake along the centre line (in the span wise mid-plane) is
presented. The length of the recirculation zone is determined by the
axial location, where the stream wise velocity changes from backflow
(negative velocity) to positive values. The calculated time averaged
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan
Fig. 4. Comparison of the LES to experimental profiles: time averaged velocity in stream wise direction in the wake of the cylinder in (a) and time averaged local
pressure coefficient in azimuthal direction along the cylinder wall in (b).
velocity in stream wise direction (< u >) is compared to experiments
of Parnaudeau et al. (2008), Ong and Wallace (1996) and Lourenco and
Shih (1994). The data of Lourenco and Shih (1994) were obtained from
Kravchenko and Moin (2000). The length of the recirculation zone is
slightly overestimated but still well predicted by the LES.
In order to validate the correct pressure distribution around the
cylinder, the time averaged local pressure coefficient Cp(γ) in the mid
span plane is compared to the experiment of Norberg (1987). The time
averaged local pressure coefficient, Cp(γ), is calculated from eq. (3) as a
function the temporal mean value of the wall pressure < P(γ) > at
angle γ:
< P (γ ) > − P∞
Cp (γ ) = 1
2
ρUc2
The reference pressure P∞ is set to zero. The correct prediction of
the pressure distribution along the cylinder wall is shown in Fig. 4b.
The angle turns from the frontal stagnation point on the cylinder at 0° to
the cylinder back face at 180° as shown in Fig. 4b.
In analogy to Parnaudeau et al. (2008) and Lysenko et al. (2012),
Fig. 5. Power spectra of the velocity component in transvers direction at two distances from the cylinder: x/D = 3 in (a) and x/D = 5 in (b).
Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45
Fig. 5 shows the power spectra of transverse velocity fluctuations, Evv/
(Uc2D), at two locations on the centre line in the wake of the cylinder:
x/D=3 and x/D=5. Samples of the transverse velocities were collected
over about 50 vortex shedding cycles. The spectra, calculated from
these time series, were averaged in the span wise direction to increase
the statistical sample. Since an adaptive time stepping technique was
used for the time integration (varying time steps), the collected time
series were interpolated to an equidistantly positioned time vector of a
power of 2 length. To obtain the spectra, the periodogram technique
was used (Welch, 1967) employing the GNU program Octave
(OCTAVE). The frequency was normalized by the calculated Strouhal
shedding frequency (fvs) of 0.21. The power spectra (normalized by the
bulk velocity squared) are displayed together with the experimental
(3) results of Ong and Wallace (1996), which have been obtained from
Lysenko et al. (2012). A −5/3 slope is shown as well. The overall
agreement between experimental and numerically predicted spectra is
good at both locations.
This first study has shown the good performance of the developed
LES methodology by comparing experimental and calculated
35
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan
Fig. 6. The PANACHET facility: view on test channel in (a), geometry and dimensions of the test section in (b).
turbulence statistics (mean values, Reynolds stresses and power
spectra) of the flow around a single circular cylinder. The peripheral
distribution of the cylinder wall pressure was also well predicted. The
LES methodology is thus applied in a second step to small scale PAN-
ACHET experiments related to tangential baffle jets.
4. LES analysis of baffle jetting for experimental conditions
4.1. Description of the experimental facility PANACHET
CEA has initiated the experimental program CHRISTINE to better
understand the combined action of axial and cross flow on the vibration
excitation of fuel rods (Boulanger et al., 1997). The PANACHET single
effect analytical experiment was set up in 1996 in support to the
CHRISTINE program (Jacques, 1999) in order to investigate early, large
amplitude, vibratory instability. The small scale facility was built to
mimic the fluid structure interaction for the case of baffle jetting. Only
tangential jets were investigated. The deflection of the jet by the axial
flow in the corner assembly was not investigated in analytical experi-
ments. The experimental model consists of an array of 36 inline posi-
tioned 6 × 6 cylindrical tubes as presented in Fig. 6a and b. The tubes
are placed in the square cross section channel of 0.08 × 0.08 m2 build
in Plexiglas as shown in Fig. 6a.
The geometry of the test section is shown in Fig. 6b. Concerning the
arrangement of rods, rows are defined in stream wise directions (x-di-
rection) and columns in transverse direction (y-direction). The rod's
diameter is 9.5 mm (D) with a pitch-to-diameter ratio of 4/3 (P/D). The
vertical and horizontal (Yf and Xf respectively) distances from the
centre of the closest rods to the channel walls was set to 8.4 mm,
leaving a rod-to-wall gap of 3.65 mm. The experimental set-up of
PANACHET allowed to perform experiments with the rods rigidly held
and loosely fixed. Only rigid rods are considered in the present study. A
plane wall jet is injected into the test section by an injection channel of
5 mm height (y-direction) and 80 mm width (z-direction). Downstream
of a convergent, this channel has an injection length in x-direction of
about 40 hydraulic diameters dh with an almost constant cross section.
The ratio of rod-to-wall gap to the height of the inlet channel (l) is 0.73.
4.2. Setup of the calculation and boundary conditions
The unsteady corner baffle jetting flow in the PANACHET facility is
analysed by LES with the finite element based, finite volume method
described in chapter 2. The meshing of the calculation domain is shown
in Fig. 7. The grid of 32 million tetrahedrons was realized with the
advancing front method of ICEMCFD. The mesh characteristic is similar
to that of the single rod analysis of chapter 3.
No slip walls were used on all rods’ surfaces, test section- and
channel walls (y+ < 2 was assured). Neumann boundary conditions
with a constant pressure outlet were used at the outflow face of the test
section. In order to stabilise the flow near the outlet, a first order up-
wind convection scheme replaces close to the outlet the centred
36
Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45
scheme. A periodic channel of 0.005 m height and 8 dh length is con-
nected to the inlet boundary of the test section in order to impose a fully
developed turbulent channel flow. The coupled simulation of test sec-
tion and periodic channel advance in time jointly. The unsteady velo-
city distribution of the periodic channel is imposed at each time step on
the test section inlet. Bieder et al. (2014) have discussed this procedure
in more detail for LES in fuel assembly flow. Physical properties cor-
respond to water at ambient conditions (density ρ = 1000 kg/m3 and
dynamic viscosity μ = 10−3 Pa s). The used time step of about
2 × 10−6 s respects the Courant-Friedrichs-Levy stability criteria.
4.3. Qualitative analysis of the flow in the experimental facility
The flow in the PANACHET test facility is discussed qualitatively for
Reynolds number Re = 5010 based on the hydraulic diameter dh of the
inlet channel (mean inlet velocity = 0.53 m/s). The flow field in the test
section is hydraulically fully established after a transient of about 3.5 s.
The flow distribution in the test section is visualized in Fig. 8. The time
averaged velocity magnitude contours are shown (averaging period
from 3.5 to 4.5 s of the transient). Half of test facility is removed vi-
sually from the figure to better illustrate the flow close to the bottom
wall.
The flow entering the test section through the inlet channel is de-
flected upward by the 1st rod. In fact, the flow splits in two main
branches after impinging onto the corner rod. One moves horizontally
in the gap between the 1st row of rods and the bottom wall in the
positive x-direction. The second branch moves upward in the gap be-
tween front wall and 1st column of rods, turns right (90°) in the corner
between the front wall and the upper wall and leaves the rod bundle
essentially in the gap between upper wall and the 6th row of rods. A
significant diagonal flow develops downward between the rods. This
downward flow balances the upward flow near the front wall. A
backward flow is formed in the wakes of the first three rods of the 1st
row. Secondary flow structures are seen in the wake of the rods of the
1st row.
Fig. 9 presents contours of the instantaneous velocity magnitude in
the span wise mid-plane of the PANACHET facility. The velocity mag-
nitude (Fig. 9a) and velocity vectors close to the exit of the injection
channel (Fig. 9b) are presented. The deflection of the flow on the 1st
rod into two main streams as well as the formation of an extended re-
circulation zone between 1st rod and front wall are clearly seen in
Fig. 9a and b, respectively.
The time averaged velocity magnitude is visualized in Fig. 10 for
two planes. Plane (a) is a vertical plane in y-z direction in 1 mm dis-
tance from the front wall and plane (b) is a horizontal plane in z-x
direction in 2 mm distance from the bottom wall.
The velocity distribution in the vertical plane of Fig. 10a shows that
the velocity in the inlet channel is not constant in span wise direction as
supposed by the experimentators. Rather the flow accelerates in the
centre of the channel due to momentum deficit at the edges of the inlet
channel caused by wall friction on the lateral walls. Therefore, the
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan
Fig. 7. View on the meshing of the PANACHET facility: global view on the lateral side in (a) and zoom on the first two rods in (b).
upward flow between front wall and 1st rod (at y ≈ 0.01 m) shows
significant diversions in span wise direction that are directed from the
span wise mid-plane to the lateral walls.
The velocity distribution in the horizontal plane shows the forma-
tion of stream wise secondary flow structures in the gap between
bottom wall and 1st row of rods. The stripes in span wise direction
represent regions of lower velocity. As these regions are located close to
the rods, the beginning of the formation of significant stream wise
secondary flow structures is estimated to start at the 4th row. This
phenomena is also observed Fig. 8.
4.4. Quantitative analysis of an PANACHET experiment
Particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements of the stream wise
(x-direction) velocity components have been performed in the span wise
mid-plane (Jacques, 1999) of the test section of the PANACHET facility.
In an internal report of CEA, the error of the measurement was reported
to be below 1%. Unfortunately, it is not possible today to confirm this
reported high precision. Spatial profiles in transverse direction
(0 < y < 0.013 m) were realized in the gap between front wall and
1st rod (x = 0.001825 m) as well as in the gap between 1st rod and 2nd
rod (x = 0.01325 m). Profiles of the time averaged stream wise velocity
of the baffle jet are compared in Fig. 11 for the Reynolds numbers
Re = 5010 (two left plots in Fig. 11) and Re = 10300 (two right plots in
Fig. 11), corresponding to bulk inlet channel velocities of 0.53 and
1.1 m/s, respectively. The experimental values are marked with symbol
“+” and are compared to the time averaged values obtained with LES,
Fig. 8. Time averaged velocity magnitude in the PANACHET facility.
37
Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45
averaged over 1 s (solid lines in Fig. 11).
The wide dispersion of the measured velocity poses some doubts on
the quality and validity of the experimental results. However, as long as
no better data is available, the PANACHET experiments are taken as
reference. For both Reynolds numbers, the overall comparison of the
wall bounded jet (y < 0.006 m) seems to be of reasonable accuracy.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to conclude about the formation of the
recirculation zone between the front wall and the 1st rod and the
backward flow in the wake of the 2nd rod due to the location of the
profile in the centre of the gaps, where the x-component of the velocity
vector is very small. Measuring the y-component of the velocity vector
in this location would have significantly enriched the experimental
database.
The distribution of the time-averaged pressure (1-s temporal mean
value) is shown in Fig. 12a for the span wise centre plane with a zoom
on the first two rows and first two columns. The Reynolds number is
10300. The points of high pressure on the first row of rods represent the
velocity stagnation points on the rods wall. The low pressure zone be-
tween 1st row and front wall is formed due to already mentioned re-
circulation zone. Fig. 12b shows the peripheral wall pressure distribu-
tion of the corner rod (1st rod). The experimental values, the calculated
mean pressure (averaged over 2 s) as well as the standard deviation of
the calculated pressure fluctuations (std) are presented in Fig. 12b. The
calculation globally represents well the experiment.
Neglecting viscous forces, the force coefficients lift and drag were
calculated for the 1st rod according to eqs. (4) and (5), respectively.
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45

Fig. 9. Instantaneous velocity in the span wise mid-plane of the PANACHET facility: velocity magnitude in (a) and velocity vectors (coloured with velocity mag-
nitude) close to the exit of the injection channel in (b).

0.88 × L 2π
Fl ∯< P (γ ) > ⋅sin(γ )⋅dγ⋅ds 1 order to increase the statistical sample, time series of the force coeffi-
CL = 1 2
= 1
ρUc2⋅D⋅hc
=
D ⋅h c
∫ ∫ Cp (γ ) cients were collected over approximately 2 s at 13 equidistantly dis-
2
ρUc ⋅D ⋅h c 2 0.12 × L 0
tributed locations in span wise direction that are located between
⋅sin(γ )⋅dγ⋅ds (4) 0.01 m and 0.07 m. The spectra calculated from these time series were
0.88 × L 2π
then spatially averaged. Since an adaptive time stepping technique was
Fd ∯< P (γ ) > ⋅cos(γ )⋅dγ⋅ds 1 used for the time integration (varying time steps), the collected time
CD = 1 2
= 1
ρUc2⋅D⋅hc
=
D⋅hc
∫ ∫ Cp (γ)
2
ρUc ⋅D ⋅h c 2 0.12 × L 0 series were interpolated to an equidistantly positioned time vector of a
power of 2 length. To obtain the spectra, the periodogram technique
⋅cos(γ )⋅dγ⋅ds (5)
was used (Welch, 1967) with the GNU program Octave (OCTAVE) al-
The time averaged local pressure coefficient, eq. (3), is integrated ready mentioned in chapter 3.
circumferentially around the rod of diameter D and in span wise di- It is interesting to note that a dominant shedding frequency does not
rection between z = 0.01 m (0.12 × L) and z = 0.07 m (0.88 × L). L is exist for the two Reynolds numbers. Both spectra show a rupture of the
the total length of the rods. The span wise extension of the integration slope at about 50 Hz for Re = 5010 and at about 100 Hz for
domain has been shortened in order to suppress the influence of the Re = 10300. Such slope ruptures are characteristic for the spectral force
lateral walls on the force coefficients. These walls are located at z = 0 m coefficient of rod bundles in cross flow (Axisa, 2001).
and z = 0.08 m. The resulting cylinder axial length hc represents only
the central 75% of the total length of the rod. The mean inlet velocity of
the jet is used as reference velocity Uc. Lift and drag coefficients are 5. LES analysis of baffle jetting at reactor conditions
averaged in time over 2 s (from 3.5s to 5.5s). The resulting mean force
coefficients lift and drag are summarized in Table 1. It is interesting to When baffle jetting occurs, two flow directions that are perpendi-
note that lift and drag diminish with increasing Reynolds number. cular to each other, are superimposed: the main flow in the reactor
Fig. 13a and b shows the spectra of the force coefficients lift and drag core, which is aligned with the fuel rods and the cross flow initiated by
for the Reynolds numbers Re = 5010 and Re = 10300, respectively. In the baffle jet (see Fig. 1). Although related experiments for reactor

Fig. 10. Time averaged velocity magnitude in two planes: close to the front wall in (a) and close to the bottom wall in (b).

38
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45

Fig. 11. Comparison of transverse profiles (0 < y < 0.013 m) of the time averaged stream wise velocity at two Reynolds numbers and two locations: between front
wall and 1st rod (x = 0.001825 m) and between 1st rod and 2nd rod (x = 0.01325 m).

conditions exist (Boulanger et al., 1997; Drumont et al., 2018), ex- defined, which is shown in Fig. 14, to particularly treat the turbulent
perimental data have not been published. Thus, the complex flow in- flow close to the fuel rods n°1, n°2 and n°3 (see Fig. 14b). The calcu-
teraction of a corner baffle jet with fuel rods and reactor core main flow lation domain was inspired by the numerical analysis of the AGATE
is analysed here only numerically. A simplified calculation domain was experiments presented by Bieder et al. (2014). The numerical model is

Fig. 12. Distribution of the time averaged pressure in Pa: field in the span wise mid plane close to the inlet channel exit in (a) and pressure course around the corner
rod in (b).

39
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan
Table 1
Calculated mean force coefficients lift and drag on the 1st rod.
Re = 5010 Re = 10300
Force coefficient Force coefficient Force coefficient Force coefficient
lift drag lift drag
4.12 5.57 3.17 4.83
identical to that presented in chapter 2. This model has been validated
by the single rod test case (chapter 3) and the PANACHET experiment
(chapter 4), respectively.
A fuel assembly without mixing grids of 5 × 5 fuel rods is con-
sidered, located in a core baffle corner. An axial assembly length of 40
dh is modelled. The flow rate in the assembly is imposed at the assembly
inlet plane. In order to create turbulent fluctuations at this location, a
periodic precursor-domain, called periodic box, of an axial length of 8 dh
was created upstream of the fuel assembly. Periodic box and fuel as-
sembly are shown schematically in Fig. 14a. The front face of the core
baffle is transparent for visual reasons. The periodic box has the same
cross section as the fuel assembly. Starting from an initially constant
axial velocity of 5.35 m/s, a transient in the periodic domain was si-
mulated until laminar/turbulence transition occurred and the turbulent
fluctuations were stabilized. The initial flow rate in the box was con-
served by adjusting at each time step a momentum source in form of
linear pressure gradient. The instantaneous velocity, calculated at each
time step at the periodicity plane of the periodic box, is imposed at each
time step at the assembly inlet plane. The used time step of about
2 × 10−6 s respects the Courant-Friedrichs-Levy stability criteria.
A zoom on a section of the assembly is shown in Fig. 14b, this
section is marked in Fig. 14a. The diameter of the rods and pitch-to-
diameter ratio are identical to those in the PANACHET test. The dis-
tance between rods and baffle walls is 0.0035 m. The baffle jet has a
width of 0.001 m and is injected tangentially to the core baffle called
bottom face. The jet forms a wall bounded jet when developing along the
core baffle. Since the gap flow is considered as the flow through a small
orifice, which suppresses large scale turbulent fluctuations, a spatially
and temporally constant flow velocity of 5 m/s is assumed at the baffle
jet inlet; velocity fluctuations are not imposed. The lower boundary of
the gap between the intersecting baffle plates (core baffle gap) is lo-
cated 0.012 m downstream of the assembly inlet plane. Fig. 14c shows
the applied boundary conditions. The 5 × 5 rods model-assembly in-
tends to represent the corner rods in a 17 × 17 rods corner assembly
(see Fig. 1). Therefore, front- and bottom face of the core baffle are
Fig. 13. Spectra of the force coefficients lift and drag: Re = 5010 in (a) and Re = 10300 in (b).
40
Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45
treated as walls, on which Reichardt's wall function is applied (for de-
tails, see Bieder and Costa (2018)). To account for the predominant
axial flow inside of the corner assembly, symmetry conditions are used
at the boundaries inside of the assembly (called assembly faces), which
are located on the opposite sides of the core baffles. The symmetry
condition will significantly amortise turbulent fluctuations at these
boundaries. However, this drawback was accepted to allow the flow to
accelerate in axial direction inside the corner assembly, away from the
baffle walls, to compensate flow deceleration close to the baffle walls
due to the wall friction. It was verified by increasing the calculation
domain from 5 × 5 to 6 × 6 rods, that the presence of the symmetry
planes has no effect on the turbulence characteristics close to the target
rods n°1, n°2 and n°3 (Fig. 14b). The thermal hydraulic conditions are
also given in Fig. 14c that lead to the following constant physical
properties of the fluid: density ρ = 644 kg/m3 and kinematic viscosity
ν = 7.5 × 10−5 m2/s.
For the precursor periodic box, Fig. 15a shows the distribution of the
time averaged velocity magnitude in colour scale with superimposed
velocity vectors. The velocity vectors are projected onto a horizontal
plane (normal to the z-axis). Both, the deceleration of the flow in the
corner formed by the core baffles and the acceleration of the flow in the
symmetry planes are good visible in the figure.
Secondary flow structures due to anisotropic turbulence do not
develop under the used boundary conditions in the sub channels of the
rod bundle as observed in 5 × 5 rod bundles enclosed by walls (Bieder
et al., 2014, 2015). Secondary flow structures develop only in the core
baffle corner and close to rod n°1. Arrows mark these vortices in
Fig. 15b, which is a zoom on rod n°1 in the corner of the core baffle.
Fig. 16 shows the velocity distribution in a vertical plane, which is
oriented parallel to the bottom face of the core baffle (see Fig. 14). The
vector in the lower left corner of Fig. 15b indicates the baffle jet di-
rection and thus also specifies the orientation of the plane. The distance
of the visualisation plane to the baffle wall (y-direction) is 0.0005 m;
this means that the plane is placed in the centre of the baffle jet. Both,
instantaneous and time averaged values of the velocity magnitude are
shown in colour scale in Fig. 16a and b, respectively. Instantaneous
velocity vectors, which are projected onto the visualisation plane, are
shown in Fig. 16c. The deflection of the baffle jet in axial flow direction
is good visible in the vector plot. Small scale turbulent fluctuations in
the baffle jet and the main assembly flow are visible in the in-
stantaneous velocity contours. A zone of very low velocities in the z-x
plane (high velocity in y-direction) separates the baffle jet from the
axial flow region. This separation is good visible in the time averaged
values of the velocity as well as in the vector plot.
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45

Fig. 14. Description of the assembly model: Calculation domain with the precursor periodic box in (a), section of the assembly model in (b) and boundary and
thermal-hydraulic conditions in (c).

Fig. 15. Time averaged velocity magnitude and velocity vectors projected onto a horizontal plane normal to the z-axis in the periodic box: total view in (a) and zoom
to the corner rod in (b).

41
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45

Fig. 16. Velocities in a vertical plane located in parallel to the bottom face of the core baffle: Magnitude of time averaged values in (a), instantaneous values in (b)
and instantaneous velocity vectors in (c).

Fig. 17. Time averaged velocity magnitude and velocity vectors in horizontal planes normal to z-axis at two distances from the lower boundary of the baffle gap: At
z = 0.035 m in (a) and at z = 0.16 m in (b).

42
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan
Fig. 17 presents the time averaged velocity magnitude as well as
velocity vectors for a horizontal plane, oriented normal to the axial flow
direction (z-axis). Two axial distances from the lower edge of the core
baffle gap are selected. Lines in Fig. 16a mark the location of the two
planes. It is seen from Fig. 17a, at z = 0.035 m (0.023 m above the
lower boundary of the baffle gap), that the baffle jet penetrates hor-
izontally about 0.012 m into the assembly. A significant recirculation
zone with swirling flow and low velocities is being established near rod
n°1. In Fig. 17b, at z = 0.16 m (0.148 m above the lower boundary of
the baffle gap), the jet has traversed horizontally through the entire
assembly. Significant cross flow only exists in the baffle jet and does not
exist in other regions of the assembly. The wall bounded jet spreads in
crosswise direction with increasing distance from the jet inlet nozzle. As
the gap between the core baffle plates is very thin (0.001 m), the jet
does not impact on rod n°1 and rod n°2. The baffle jet finally impacts on
rod n°3.
It is expected that the swirling flow in the recirculation zone near
rod n°1 and the direct impact of the jet on rod n°3 will significantly
influence the pressure forces acting on these rods. Hence, the local force
coefficients lift and drag were calculated for two axial distances from
the lower boundary of the baffle gap: z = 0.023 m for rod n°1 and
z = 0.148 m for rod n°3. The method to calculate the force coefficients
is described in chapter 4. For both rods, the mean jet velocity is takes as
reference velocity Uc. The time history of the force coefficients is shown
in Fig. 18; on the left side for the corner rod (rod n°1) and on the right
side for the third rod in jet direction (rod n°3). For rod n°1, Fig. 18a
shows a dominant fluctuating frequency of the force coefficients, which
cannot be observed in Fig. 18b for rod n°3. Higher force coefficients are
obtained for rod n°1 compared to those of rod n°3 since rod n°1 is lo-
cated in a zone of important horizontal pressure gradients. However,
rod n°3 shows higher fluctuation amplitudes. It is interesting to note
that the dominant force coefficient changes from drag for rod n°1 to lift
for rod n°3.
The corresponding spectral force coefficients are calculated as de-
scribed in chapter 4. They are shown in Fig. 19. A dominant frequency
of about 80 Hz is obtained for rod n°1. Rod n°3 exhibits globally higher
spectral force coefficients, however, without showing a dominant fre-
quency.
The distinguished frequency detected for rod n°1 and the direct
impact of the baffle jet on rod n°3 might explain the rod failures that
have been detected on these rods due to flow induced early instabilities
(Tekatlian et al., 1999).
Fig. 18. Time history of the force coefficients: Rod n°1 at z = 0.035 m in (a) and rod n°3 at z = 0.16 m in (b).
43
Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45
6. Conclusion
The risk of baffle jetting exists in pressurized water reactors, which
are designed with a counter flow configuration in the core bypass re-
gion. Baffle jetting can affect fuel assemblies that are located in the
periphery of the core, adjacent to the core baffle (corner assemblies). If
a gap between intersecting baffle plates becomes enlarged, the pressure
drop across the baffle plate creates a water jet impinging on neigh-
bouring fuel rods. In a former CEA experimental program, baffle jetting
was found to induce early, large vibratory amplitudes of fuel rods at
low turbulence kinetic energy levels and thus failure from fretting wear.
Predicting baffle jetting induced vibrations of fuel rods is still a
challenge in the field of fluid structure interaction. The present work
aims to extend the understanding of the unsteady flow in rod bundles to
situations where baffle jetting occurs. The study is thus dealing with
predicting the complicated flow field around a rod bundle in conditions
mimicking the real life nuclear reactor geometry with baffle jetting.
Only rigid rods are treated.
As a first step, the employed numerical model and the LES method
are evaluated on the example of a well-documented test case related to
fuel rods in cross flow: the flow around a circular cylinder at
Re = 3900. The proposed LES method reproduces in good accordance
high quality measurements in the wake of the rod: velocity mean values
and Reynolds stresses. In the successive step, the validated modelling
method is applied to the CEA PANACHET experiment. This analysis
helped to understand better the flow field of a corner baffle jet and
further validated the modelling approach. Comparisons of calculated
and measured velocity profiles of the baffle jet showed a good agree-
ment. The lack of published data on baffle jets was stressed out.
The flow field in the core baffle corner is finally analysed for rea-
listic reactor conditions. A plain jet is injected in parallel to a baffle wall
by a baffle gap of 1 mm width into the axial flow of a corner assembly.
The previously validated LES method is applied. The analysis of the
flow field showed that:
• Swirling flow exists close to the corner rod. The calculated force
coefficients lift and drag of this rod show a dominant fluctuation
frequency of about 80 Hz for the boundary conditions employed.
• The baffle jet impacts on the third rod in jet direction (passing the
first two rods without impact). The force coefficients of the third rod
do not show a dominant oscillation frequency but show increased
oscillation amplitudes.
The distinguished fluctuation frequency detected for rod n°1 and the
direct impact of the baffle jet on rod n°3 might explain the rod failures
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan
Fig. 19. Spectra of the force coefficient lift and drag: Rod n°1 at z = 0.035 m in (a) and rod n°3 at z = 0.16 m in (b).
that have been detected for these rods.
Acknowledgement
This work was granted access to the HPC resources of TGCC and
CINES under the allocation A0032A07571 made by GENCI.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2019.02.006.
References
Afgan, I., Kahil, Y., Benhamadouche, S., Sagaut, P., 2011. Large eddy simulation of the
flow around single and two side-by-side cylinders at subcritical Reynolds numbers.
Phys. Fluids 23, 075–101.
Angeli, P.-E., Bieder, U., Fauchet, G., 2015. Overview of the Trio_U code: main features, V
&V procedures and typical applications to engineering. In: 16th International Topical
Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics, NURETH-16, Chicago, USA.
Angeli, P.-E., Puscas, M.-A., Fauchet, G., Cartalade, A., 2017. “FVCA8 benchmark for the
Stokes and Navier–Stokes equations with the TrioCFD code—benchmark session”. In:
Finite Volumes for Complex Applications VIII - Methods and Theoretical Aspects.
Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 181–202.
Axisa, F., 2001. Vibrations sous écoulements". Modélisation des systèmes mécaniques
(Tome 4). HERMES Science Publications.
Bernard, P., Messainguiral-Bruynooghe, C., Cloué, J., Puyal, C., Vincent, C., Baeyens, R.,
1985. Jet de cloisonnement: phénomènes vibratoires possibles et effet neutroniques
sur les détecteurs cœur. Prog. Nucl. Energy 15, 261–272.
Bieder, U., Costa, D., 2018. Analysis of the heat transfer in a 4x4 rod bundle. Ann. Nucl.
Energy 115, 352–366.
Bieder, U., Rodio, G., 2019. Large Eddy Simulation of the injection of cold ECC water into
the cold leg of a pressurized water reactor. Nucl. Eng. Des. 341, 186–197.
Bieder, U., Falk, F., Fauchet, G., 2014. LES analysis of the flow in a simplified PWR
assembly with mixing grid. Prog. Nucl. Energy 75, 15–24.
Bieder, U., Falk, F., Fauchet, G., 2015. CFD analysis of the flow in the near wake of a
generic PWR mixing grid. Ann. Nucl. Energy 82, 169–178.
Boulanger, P., Fardeau, P., Rigaudeau, J., 1997. FIV of PWR fuel rods under local jets:
instability threshold and influence of jet configuration. In: Transactions of the 14th
International Conference on Structural Mechanics, Reactor Technology (SMiRT 14),
Lyon, France, August 17-22.
Breuer, M., 1998. Large eddy simulation of the subcritical flow past a circular cylinder:
numerical and modelling aspects. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 28, 1281–1302.
De La Llave Plata, M., Lamballais, E., Couaillier, V., May 2017. A discontinuous Galerkin
variational multiscale approach to LES of turbulent flows. In: ERCOFTAC Workshop
Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation 11 (DLES11), (Pise, Italy).
Drumond, J., et al., 2018. Industrial Applications of Framatom's State-Of-The-Art CFD
Methods to Nuclear Reactor Savety Analysis. TOPFUEL conference, Prague, Czech
Republic.
Ducros, F., Bieder, U., Cioni, O., Fortin, T., Fournier, B., Fauchet, G., Quéméré, P., 2010.
Verification and validation considerations regarding the qualification of numerical
schemes for LES for dilution problems. Nucl. Eng. Des. 240, 2123–2130.
Ferziger, J., Peric, M., 1997. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. Springer Verlag,
44
Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45
Berlin-Heidelberg.
Fortin, T., 2006. Une méthode Eléments Finis à décomposition L2 d’ordre élevé motivé
par la simulation d’écoulement diphasique bas Mach. PhD thesis. l'Université de
Paris VI.
Fujita, K., 2009. Simulation analysis using CFD on vibration behaviours of circular cy-
linders subjected to free jets through narrow gaps in the vicinity of walls. WIT Trans.
Built Environ. 105, 85–95.
Fujita, K., Ito, T., Khono, N., 1990. Experimental study on the vibration of circular cy-
linders subjected to cross flow jetted from a narrow gap. J. Fluids Struct. 4 (1),
99–124.
Gsell, S., Bourguet, R., Braza, M., 2017. Vortex-induced vibrations of a cylinder in planar
shear flow. J. Fluid Mech. 825, 353–384.
Gsell, S., Bourguet, R., Braza, M., 2018. Three-dimensional flow past a fixed or freely
vibrating cylinder in the early turbulent regime. Phys. Rev. Fluid. 3 (1), 013902.
Harlow, F., Welch, J., 1965. Numerical calculation of time-dependent viscous in-
compressible flow of fluid with free surface. Phys. Fluids 8 (12), 2182–2189.
Hirt, C.V., Nichols, B.D., Romero, N.C., 1975. SOLA - A Numerical Solution Algorithm for
Transient Flow. Los Alamos National Lab. Report LA-5852.
IAEA-TECDOC-1119, 1999. Assessment and Management of Ageing of Major Nuclear
Power Plant Components Important to Safety: PWR Vessel Internals. IAEA.
Jacques, Y., 1999. Etude de la stabilité de crayons combustibles REP soumis à un
écoulement transverse. PhD thesis. Ecole Central de Lyon.
Jacques, Y., Barbier, D., Boulanger, P., 1997. Flow induced vibrations for PWR fuel rods
under local jets : resonance amplitude in the stability range. In: Transactions of the
14th International Conference on Structural Mechanics, Reactor Technology (SMiRT
14), Lyon, France, August 17-22.
Kravchenko, A., Moin, P., 2000. Numerical studies of flow over a circular cylinder at
Re=3900. Phys. Fluids 12 (2), 403–417.
Kuzmin, D., Turek, S., 2002. Flux correction tools for finite elements. J. Comput. Phys.
175, 525–558.
Lourenco, L.M., Shih, C., 1994. Characteristics or the plane turbulent near wake of a
circular cylinder, a particle image velocimetry study. In: Beaudan, P., Moin, P. (Eds.),
Numerical Experiments on the Flow Past a Circular at a Sub-critical Reynolds
Number”. Report Number TF62, Thermosciences Division, Department of Mechanical
Engineering. Stanford University, pp. 1–44.
Lysenko, D.A., Ertesvåg, I.S., Rian, K.E., 2012. Large-eddy simulation of the flow over a
circular cylinder at Reynolds number 3900 using the OpenFOAM toolbox. Flow,
Turbul. Combust. 89, 491–518.
Nicoud, F., Ducros, F., 1999. Subgrid-scale stress modelling based on the square of the
velocity gradient. Flow, Turbul. Combust. 62 (3), 183–200.
Norberg, C., 1987. Effects of Reynolds Number and a Low- Intensity Free-Stream
Turbulence on the Flow Around Circular Cylinder. Publication No. 87/2.
Department of Applied Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics, Chalmers University
of Technology, Sweden.
OCTAVE https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/.
Ong, L., Wallace, J., 1996. The velocity field of the turbulent very near wake of a circular
cylinder. Exp. Fluid 20, 441–453.
Parnaudeau, P., Carlier, J., Heitz, D., Lamballais, E., 2008. Experimental and numerical
studies of the flow over a circular cylinder at Reynolds number 3900. Phys. Fluids 20,
085101.
Pope, S.B., 2000. Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sagaut, P., 2001. Large eddy simulation for incompressible flows: an introduction. In:
Scientific Computation Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Seki, K., Kuwabara, S., Tanimura, K., Matsumoto, S., Toba, M., 1986. A study on fuel rod
vibration induced by baffle jet flow. Nucl. Technol. 74 (1), 27–37.
Singh, S.P., Mittal, S., 2004. Flow past a cylinder: shear layer instability and drag crisis.
Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 47 (75–98).
Smagorinsky, J., 1963. General circulation experiments with the primitive equations: 1.
U. Bieder and A. Rashkovan Progress in Nuclear Energy 114 (2019) 31–45

The basic experiment. Mon. Weather Rev. 91, 99–164.
Tanaka, H., Takahara, S., 1981. Fluid elastic vibration of tube array in cross-flow. J.
Sound Vib. 77 (1), 19–37.
Tekatlian, A., Rigaudeau, J., Aubert, S., Jacques, Y., 1999. Flow induced instabilities of
fuel rods bundles subjected to a plane jet cross flow: experimental and numerical
analysis. Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. Press. Vessel. Pip. Div. (Publ.) PVP 389, 57–63.
TrioCFD http://www-trio-u.cea.fr/.
United states nuclear regulatory commission office of inspection and enforcement, 1980.
Fuel Pin Damage Due to Water Jet from Baffle Plate Corner. IE Circular No. 80-17.
July 23.
United states nuclear regulatory commission office of inspection and enforcement, 2014.
Licensee Event Report No. 50-339/2014-002-00.
Welch, P., 1967. The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: a
method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms. IEEE Trans.
Audio Electroacoust. 15 (6), 70–73.
Zdravkovich, M.M., 1997. Flow Around Circular Cylinders, vol. 1 Oxford University Press,
Oxford, New York, Tokyo.

45