Supercritical Water Heat Transfer in a Vertical Bare Tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents selected results on heat transfer to supercritical water flowing upward in a 4-m-long vertical bare tube. Supercritical water heat-transfer data were obtained at pressures of about 24 MPa, mass fluxes of 200 – 1500 kg/m2s, heat fluxes up to 884 kW/m2 and inlet temperatures from 320 to 350°C for several combinations of wall and bulk-fluid temperatures that were below, at or above the pseudocritical temperature. In general, the experiments confirmed that there are three heat-transfer regimes for forced convective heat transfer to water flowing inside tubes at supercritical pressures: (1) normal heat-transfer regime characterized in general with heat transfer coefficients (HTCs) similar to those of subcritical convective heat transfer far from critical or pseudocritical regions, which are calculated according to the Dittus-Boelter type correlations; (2) deteriorated heat-transfer regime with lower values of the HTC and hence higher values of wall temperature within some part of a test section compared to those of the normal heat-transfer regime; and (3) improved heat-transfer regime with higher values of the HTC and hence lower values of wall temperature within some part of a test section compared to those of normal heat-transfer regime. These new heat-transfer data are applicable as a reference dataset for future comparison with supercritical-water bundle data and for a verification of scaling parameters between water and modeling fluids. Also, these HTC data were compared to those calculated with the original Dittus-Boelter and Bishop et al. correlations. The comparison showed that the Bishop et al. correlation, which uses the cross-section average Prandtl number, represents HTC profiles more correctly along the heated length of the tube than the Dittus-Boelter correlation. In general, the Bishop et al. correlation shows a good agreement with the experimental HTCs outside the pseudocritical region, however, overpredicts the experimental HTCs within the pseudocritical region. The Dittus-Boelter correlation can also predict the experimental HTCs outside the pseudocritical region, but deviates significantly from the experimental data within the pseudocritical region. It should be noted that both these correlations cannot be used for a prediction of HTCs within the deteriorated heat-transfer regime.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".