Strydom et al. (2026) co-simulation
Step scenario
Tier 3: CFD, co-simulation or another model.
- What was compared
- The peak steam back pressure, its time and the peak air mass flow rate of the reference natural-draft direct dry cooling tower started from cold by a step in steam admission to 5.8% of design, in still air, on the discretised transient model.
- Against
- The CFD co-simulation of the same tower (Strydom, Pretorius and Laubscher, 2026, Fig. 5), read from its published figures; another model and not a measurement.
- The agreement
- Under the co-simulation's own conditions and with no parameter fitted, the back pressure peaks at 146.8 kPa at 891 s against 142.2 kPa at 850 s, the wall at 383.8 K against 382.9 K, and the air mass flow rate reaches 1 500 kg/s at 969 s against 1 050 s. During the hold the air mass flow rate is about twice the co-simulation's, the release comes later and overshoots less (5 100 kg/s against 14 900 kg/s at 1 050 s), and by 1 500 s the flow is within 1.1% of the co-simulation's.
- What it shows
- The agreement shows that the discretised transient reproduces the co-simulation's start-up when run on that model's isothermal far field, its wall heat capacity and its admission straight into the tubes. It is a comparison between two models under assumptions a product run does not share, it is not a validation against a measured start-up, and it contributes nothing to a model-form uncertainty band.
- Source
- W. Strydom, J. Pretorius, M. Laubscher, 'Transient co-simulation of a natural draft direct dry cooling system', Applied Thermal Engineering 300 (2026) 131471Fig. 5 — step input steam admission, no wind