Strydom et al. (2026) co-simulation
Islanding scenario
Tier 3: CFD, co-simulation or another model.
- What was compared
- The peak steam back pressure and its time for the reference natural-draft direct dry cooling tower on islanding, a step in steam admission to 265% of rated from the developed flow, in still air, on the discretised transient model.
- Against
- The CFD co-simulation of the same tower (Strydom, Pretorius and Laubscher, 2026, Fig. 11), read from its published figures; another model and not a measurement.
- The agreement
- The back pressure peaks at 49.3 kPa at about 26 s against the co-simulation's 74.7 kPa at 43 s, 34% low and earlier, and the run settles in 85 s against 140 s. The two models therefore disagree on this scenario by more than the case's tolerances of 3% on the peak and 12% on its time.
- What it shows
- The comparison is between two models and contributes nothing to a model-form uncertainty band. It is not a validation against a measured islanding event, and it records that the discretised transient responds faster and peaks lower than the co-simulation on a sudden overload.
- Source
- W. Strydom, J. Pretorius, M. Laubscher, 'Transient co-simulation of a natural draft direct dry cooling system', Applied Thermal Engineering 300 (2026) 131471Fig. 11 — islanding, no wind