4.3 Article

Experimental investigation on chill-down process of cryogenic flow line

Journal

CRYOGENICS
Volume 79, Issue -, Pages 96-105

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cryogenics.2016.08.006

Keywords

Liquid nitrogen; Chill-down; Horizontal pipe; Flow boiling; Critical heat flux; Minimum heat flux

Funding

  1. Space Core Technology Development Program of National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (MSIP) [NRF-2013-042033]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper describes the cryogenic chill-down experiments that are conducted on a 12.7 mm outer diameter, 1.25 mm wall thickness and 7 m long stainless steel horizontal pipe with liquid nitrogen (LN2). The pipe is vacuum insulated during the experiment to minimize the heat leak from room temperature and to enable one to numerically simulate the process easily. The temperature and the pressure profiles of the chill-down line are obtained at the location which is 5.5 m in a distance from the pipe inlet. The mass flux range is approximately from 19 kg/m(2) s to 49 kg/m(2) s, which corresponds to the Reynolds numbers range from 1469 to 5240. The transient histories of temperature, pressure and mass flow rate during the line chill-down process are monitored, and the heat transfer coefficient and the heat flux are computed by an inverse problem solving method. The amplitude of the pressure oscillation and the oscillating period become larger and longer at higher pressure conditions. In the low mass flux conditions, the critical heat flux in horizontal pipes is not sensitive to mass flux, and is higher than that in vertical pipes. Kutateladze's correlation with the constant coefficient, B = 0.029, well matches the experimental data in the current work. In nucleate flow boiling regime, heat transfer coefficient, h, is proportional to (q)(n), and n is equal to 0.7. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available