CFD [computational fluid dynamics] And Safety Factors. Computer modeling of complex processes needs old-fashioned experiments to stay in touch with reality.

Abstract

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is recognized as a powerful engineering tool. That is, CFD has advanced over the years to the point where it can now give us deep insight into the analysis of very complex processes. There is a danger, though, that an engineer can place too much confidence in a simulation. If a user is not careful, it is easy to believe that if you plug in the numbers, the answer comes out, and you are done. This assumption can lead to significant errors. As we discovered in the course of a study on behalf of the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site in South Carolina, CFD models fail to capture some of the large variations inherent in complex processes. These variations, or scatter, in experimental data emerge from physical tests and are inadequately captured or expressed by calculated mean values for a process. This anomaly between experiment and theory can lead to serious errors in engineering analysis and design unless a correction factor, or safety factor, is experimentally validated. For this study, blending times for the mixing of salt solutions in large storage tanks were the process of concern under investigation. This study focused on the blending processes needed to mix salt solutions to ensure homogeneity within waste tanks, where homogeneity is required to control radioactivity levels during subsequent processing. Two of the requirements for this task were to determine the minimum number of submerged, centrifugal pumps required to blend the salt mixtures in a full-scale tank in half a day or less, and to recommend reasonable blending times to achieve nearly homogeneous salt mixtures. A full-scale, low-flow pump with a total discharge flow rate of 500 to 800 gpm was recommended with two opposing 2.27-inch diameter nozzles. To make this recommendation, both experimental and CFD modeling were performed. Lab researchers found that, although CFD provided good estimates of an average blending time, experimental blending times varied significantly from the average.