Analysis and generalization of experimental data on heat transfer to supercritical pressure water flow in annular channels and rod bundles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental data on heat transfer to supercritical pressure water presented at ISSCWR-5, 6, and 7 international symposiums—which took place in 2011–2015 in Canada, China, and Finland—and data printed in recent periodical scientific publications were analyzed. Results of experiments with annular channels and three- and four-rod bundles of heating elements positioned in square or triangular grids were examined. Methodology used for round pipes was applied at generalization of experimental data and establishing of correlations suitable for engineering analysis of heat exchange coefficient in conditions of strongly changing water properties in the near-critical pressure region. Empiric formulas describing normal heat transfer to supercritical pressure water mowing in annular channels and rod bundles were obtained. As compared to existing recommendations, suggested correlations are distinguished by specified dependency of heat exchange coefficient on density of heat flux and mass flow velocity of water near pseudo-critical temperature. Differences between computed values of heat exchange coefficient and experimental data usually do not exceed ±25%. Detailed statistical analysis of deviations between computed and experimental results at different states of supercritical pressure water flow was carried out. Peculiarities of deteriorated heat exchange were considered and their existence boundaries were defined. Experimental results obtained for these regimes were generalized using criteria by J.D. Jackson that take the influence of thermal acceleration and Archimedes forces on heat exchange processes into account. Satisfactory agreement between experimental data on heat exchange at flowing of water in annular channels and rod bundles and data for round pipes was shown.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".