0
SPECIAL SECTION: SELECTED PAPERS FROM THE 2018 INTERNATIONAL YOUTH NUCLEAR CONGRESS

Thermal–Hydraulic Design in the Transition Laminar–to–Turbulent Flow Regime

[+] Author and Article Information
J. Lupiano Contreras

INVAP S.E.,
Comandante Luis Piedrabuena 4950,
San Carlos de Bariloche 8400,
Río Negro, Argentina
e-mail: JLupianoContreras@invap.com.ar

A. S. Doval

INVAP S.E.,
Comandante Luis Piedrabuena 4950,
San Carlos de Bariloche 8400,
Río Negro, Argentina
e-mail: Doval@invap.com.ar

P. A. Alberto

INVAP S.E.,
Comandante Luis Piedrabuena 4950,
San Carlos de Bariloche 8400,
Río Negro, Argentina
e-mail: PAAlberto@invap.com.ar

Manuscript received August 1, 2018; final manuscript received December 13, 2018; published online March 15, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Ignacio Gómez.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 5(2), 020902 (Mar 15, 2019) (8 pages) Paper No: NERS-18-1063; doi: 10.1115/1.4042363 History: Received August 01, 2018; Revised December 13, 2018

Difficulties are experienced during the thermal–hydraulic design of a nuclear reactor operating in the transition flow regime and are the result of the inability to accurately predict the heat transfer coefficient (HTC). Experimental values for the HTC in rectangular channels are compared with the calculated by correlations usually used for the design of material testing reactors (MTR). The values predicted by Gnielinski and Kreith correlations at Reynolds numbers below 5000 are not necessarily conservative. The Al-Arabi-Churchill correlation with the correction proposed by Jones has proved to be conservative for Reynolds between 2100 and 5000. Two alternative design approaches are proposed to solve a specific thermal–hydraulic design problem for a MTR operating at Reynolds 2500. The conservative approach comprises two alternatives: the use of Al-Arabi correlation with no uncertainty factors, as it has proved to be conservative, or the use of Kreith correlation with a maximum uncertainty. In this conservative approach, maximum deviations in other input parameters are also taken into account. The best estimate plus uncertainty approach considers an uncertainty distribution in input parameters to generate a random sample of 59 inputs. An uncertainty distribution based on the ratio between the experimental and the calculated HTC, when using Kreith correlation, is considered. Results are given in terms of maximum and minimum bounds for the figure of merit used as design criterion with 95% probability and 95% confidence level. The best estimate plus uncertainty approach offers a less penalizing design and its use depends on regulator's acceptance.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Gnielinski, V. , 1976, “ New Equations for Heat and Mass Transfer in Turbulent Pipe and Channel Flow,” Int. Chem. Eng., 16(2), pp. 359–368.
Petukhov, B. S. , 1970, “ Heat Transfer and Friction in Turbulent Pipe Flow With Variable Physical Properties,”Advances in Heat Tranfer, J. P. Hartnett and T. F. Irvine . Jr., (eds.), Vol. 50, Academic Press, New York, pp. 503–564.
Sieder, E. N. , and Tate, G. E. , 1936, “ Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of Liquids in Tubes,” Ind. Eng. Chem., 28(12), pp. 1429–1435. [CrossRef]
Silin, N. , Masson, V. P. , and Marino, R. , 2012, “ Heat Transfer in a Short Parallel-Plate Channel in the Transition Regime,” Exp. Heat Transfer, 25(1), pp. 12–29. [CrossRef]
Sleicher, C. A. , and Rouse, M. W. , 1975, “ A Convenient Correlation for Heat Transfer to Constant and Variable Property Fluids in Turbulent Pipe Flow,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 18(5), pp. 677–683. [CrossRef]
Kreith, F. , 1969, Principles of Heat Transfer, International Textbook Company, Pennsylvania, PA, Chap. 8.
Information Systems Laboratories, 2010, “ RELAP3.3 MOD 3 Code Manual Volume IV: Models and Correlations,” Information Systems Laboratories, Inc., Rockville, MD, Prepared for the Division of Systems Research, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
TERMIC V. 4.4, 2002, “TERMIC V. 4.4. A Program for the Thermal-hydraulic Analysis of a MTR Core in Forced Convection,” Manual to be used by INVAP S.E., San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina (unpublished).
Al-Arabi, M. , 1982, “ Turbulent Heat Transfer in the Entrance Region of a Tube,” Heat Transfer Eng., 4(3), pp. 76–83. [CrossRef]
Churchill, S. W. , 1977, “ Comprehensive Correlating Equations for Heat, Mass and Momentum Transfer in Fully Developed Flow in Smooth Tubes,” Ind. Chem. Fundam., 16(1), pp. 109–116. [CrossRef]
Kakac, S. , Shah, R. , and Aung, W. , 1987, Handbook of Single-Phase Convective Heat Transfer, Wiley, New York.
Jones , O. C., Jr. , 1976, “ An Improvement in the Calculation of Turbulent Friction in Rectangular Ducts,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 98(2), pp. 173–181. [CrossRef]
Wilks, S. S. , 1941, “ Determination of Sample Sizes for Setting Tolerance Limits,” Ann. Math. Stat., 12(1), pp. 91–96. [CrossRef]
Wilks, S. S. , 1942, “ Statistical Prediction With Special Reference to the Problem of Tolerance Limits,” Ann. Math. Stat., 13(4), pp. 400–409. [CrossRef]
D'Auria, F. , and Petruzzi, A. , 2008, “ Background and Qualification of Uncertainty Methods,” THICKET 2008-Session VI, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy, Paper No. 15. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/101/42101987.pdf
Machaca Abregu, W. I. , and Teruel, F. E. , 2016, “ Transferencia de Calor en el Régimen de Transición Laminar–turbulento en Canales Rectangulares Para Reynolds Moderados,” Mecánica Computacional, Córdoba, Spain, Nov. 8–11, pp. 1859–1868.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Experimental ♦ and calculated –– Nu using Kreith correlation in TERMIC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Experimental ♦ and calculated –– Nu using the Al-Arabi-Churchill correlation with the correction proposed by Jones

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Uncertainty distribution for the HTC as calculated with the Kreith correlation in TERMIC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Uncertainty distribution for the HTC as calculated with Al–Arabi–Churchill correlation with the correction proposed by Jones

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Steps in the BEPU calculation approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Maximum wall temperature distribution for 3.5 kW in cooling channel (BEPU calculation approach)

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In