ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Division Spotlight
Young Members Group
The Young Members Group works to encourage and enable all young professional members to be actively involved in the efforts and endeavors of the Society at all levels (Professional Divisions, ANS Governance, Local Sections, etc.) as they transition from the role of a student to the role of a professional. It sponsors non-technical workshops and meetings that provide professional development and networking opportunities for young professionals, collaborates with other Divisions and Groups in developing technical and non-technical content for topical and national meetings, encourages its members to participate in the activities of the Groups and Divisions that are closely related to their professional interests as well as in their local sections, introduces young members to the rules and governance structure of the Society, and nominates young professionals for awards and leadership opportunities available to members.
Meeting Spotlight
2025 ANS Annual Conference
June 15–18, 2025
Chicago, IL|Chicago Marriott Downtown
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
May 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
July 2025
Nuclear Technology
June 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Countering the nuclear workforce shortage narrative
James Chamberlain, director of the Nuclear, Utilities, and Energy Sector at Rullion, has declared that the nuclear industry will not have workforce challenges going forward. “It’s time to challenge the scarcity narrative,” he wrote in a recent online article. “Nuclear isn't short of talent; it’s short of imagination in how it attracts, trains, and supports the workforce of the future.”
Constantine P. Tzanos, Maxim Popov
Nuclear Technology | Volume 181 | Number 3 | March 2013 | Pages 466-478
Technical Papers | Thermal Hydraulics | doi.org/10.13182/NT13-A15804
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
To assess the accuracy of large-eddy simulation (LES) predictions for flow without and with heat transfer in a rod bundle, analyses were performed with a constant-coefficient Smagorinsky LES model, and numerical predictions were compared with experimental measurements in a heated triangular rod array. First, flow simulations without heat transfer were performed with one and two channels at the central region of the bundle, and simulation predictions were compared with the experimental data. For the normalized mean axial velocity and the axial component of the turbulent intensity, the predictions of the one-channel model are nearly identical with those of the two-channel model. For the other turbulence parameters, the predictions of the one-channel model are either identical or are mostly in good agreement with those of the two-channel model. LES predictions for the mean axial velocity agree well with experimental measurements. Predictions of the axial component of the turbulent intensity agree well with experimental measurements for most of the points of measurement. Predictions of the other parameters of turbulence agree well to reasonably well with measurements. Because LES simulations are computationally very demanding, the LES simulation of heat transfer was performed only with the one-channel model. LES predicts the temperature of the rod surface within the range of the experimental error. The profile (log law) of the dimensionless fluid temperature T+ predicted by LES has the same slope as that derived from the measurements, but it has a significantly higher constant. The turbulent intensity of temperature is predicted well to reasonably well. The turbulent heat flux in the axial direction and the radial direction is predicted well at points away from the wall, but there is significant discrepancy between predictions and measurements close to the wall. The predicted turbulent heat flux in the azimuthal direction agrees very well to quite well with measurements.