4.5 Article

Mixed convection heat transfer to carbon dioxide flowing upward and downward in a vertical tube and an annular channel

期刊

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
卷 241, 期 8, 页码 3164-3177

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.06.016

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2007-2000108] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper addresses three main subjects in supercritical heat transfer: (1) difference in thermal characteristics between upward and downward flows; (2) effect of simulating flow channel shape; (3) evaluation of the existing supercritical heat transfer correlations. To achieve the objectives, a series of experiments was carried out with CO2 flowing upward and downward in a circular tube with an inner diameter of 4.57 mm and an annular channel created between a tube with an inner diameter of 10 mm and a heater rod with an outer diameter of 8 mm. The working fluid, CO2, has been regarded as an appropriate modeling fluid for water, primarily because of their similarity in property variations against reduced temperatures. The mass flux ranged from 400 to 1200 kg/m(2) s. The heat flux was varied between 30 and 140 kW/m(2) so that the pseudo-critical point was located in the middle of the heated section at a given mass flux. The measurements were made at a pressure of 8.12 MPa, which corresponds to 110% of the critical pressure of CO2. The difference between the upward and downward flows was observed clearly. The heat transfer deterioration was observed in the downward flow through an annular subchannel over the region beyond the critical point. Several well-known correlations were evaluated against the experimental data, and new correlations were suggested for both a tube and an annular channel. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据