Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene

Numerical investigation of supercritical water flow in a vertical pipe

under axially non-uniform heat flux
Marcin Karol Rowinski a, b, Jiyun Zhao c, *, Timothy John White a, Yeng Chai Soh b, **
a
Energy Research Institute at NTU, Interdisciplinary Graduate School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
b
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
c
Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The authors conducted a numerical investigation of water flow in a vertical pipe during the transition
Received 6 May 2016 from sub-to supercritical conditions when non-uniform power is applied axially at the wall. The
Received in revised form Computational Fluid Dynamics calculations were first assessed with experimental results found in
22 November 2016
literature, where uniform heat flux was applied. Next, the model was used to perform calculations of four
Accepted 29 December 2016
various cases with non-uniform heat flux distribution along the axis, however, the average value is equal
to the value of the reference axially uniform-heated case. Results showed high dependency of the wall
temperature distributions on the shape of the power distribution curve applied at the wall. It was found
Keywords:
Computational fluid dynamics
that if the peak value of heat flux is close or behind occurrence of heat transfer deterioration (HTD)
Non-uniform heating phenomenon, the wall temperature increases rapidly to higher than in the reference case. However, if the
Supercritical flow peak is moved to the front part of the pipe, it is possible to achieve lower temperatures than when
Heat transfer uniform heat flux was applied. Calculations of convective heat transfer i.e. Nusselt number show that
Mass transfer currently, only two correlations were able to follow the trend of the results i.e. the Bishop's and
Heat transfer deterioration Ornatsky's formulas. From the sensitivity calculations, it was found that the wall temperature is much
more dependent on the mass flux than the operating pressure since the temperature variation is much
higher and it is followed by the change of the position where HTD occurs.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Super-Critical Water-cooled Reactors (SCWRs) are one of the
most promising technology among Generation IV reactors accepted
by Generation IV International Forum (GIF) (GIF, 2002; GIF, 2009).
They are being under development all over the world, thanks to the
possibility of increasing the efficiency of light water reactors
(LWRs) from current ca. 35% to ca. 48%. It is possible due to the fact
that the steam is under much higher temperature and pressure
than the contemporary reactors, i.e. the parameters are above
pseudo-critical point, similar to current fossil thermal power
plants. Oka and other researchers around the world are working on
reactor designs that will bring this technology to operation (Oka
et al., 1995; Koshizuka et al., 1995; Schulenberg et al., 2014;
Squarer et al., 2003). This technology is suitable for both large,
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jiyuzhao@cityu.edu.hk (J. Zhao), eycsoh@ntu.edu.sg (Y.C. Soh).
around 1000MWe (Liu and Oka, 2013), and small, around 300MWe
(Rowinski et al., 2015), rectors. From thermal-hydraulics point of
view, one of the challenges is to fully understand the phenomenon
during the transition from sub-to supercritical conditions. Duffey
and Pioro (Pioro and Duffey, 2005) reviewed all of the most sig-
nificant experiments with supercritical water flow inside pipes,
annuli and fuel rod bundles. They have found only two experiments
that were performed with use of rod bundles, since that moment
there was one more experiment done by Wang et al. (2014).
Therefore, the amount of experimental data is very limited. How-
ever, use of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software is
possible and it has been used to simulate supercritical flow suc-
cessfully. In recent years, numerical methods were validated
against data found in the literature e.g. by Jaromin and Anglart or
Gu et al. (Jaromin and Anglart, 2013; Gu et al., 2008).
Nevertheless, aforementioned experiments or simulations were
performed only when uniform heat flux was applied at the wall. In
a real situation, it is different, and the heat flux in the fuel rod is
never uniform and therefore, it is required to conduct such evalu-
ation. Only Wang et al. conducted an investigation when

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.12.009
0149-1970/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
12 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25
circumferentially non-uniformly heat flux was applied at the pipe
wall (Wang et al., 2012), however in reactor pressure vessel (RPV)
the power generated in fuel assembly is non-uniform axially. Water
properties before and after the pseudo-critical point are signifi-
cantly different. From the power generation point of view, the
density is the most influential. During the transition from sub-to
supercritical conditions, the fluid density decreases significantly
(almost one order of magnitude) and therefore, at the inlet of the
fuel assembly moderation is much greater than at the outlet.
Tashakor et al. (2012, 2013). performed an evaluation of power
distribution along fuel rods and found that the power distribution
in the axial direction has sinusoidal shape with its peak moved to
the upstream section of the fuel assembly, the location is at around
15% of total fuel rod length.
The main thermal properties of the water at 25.5MPa are shown
in Fig. 1. Above the supercritical pressure boiling crisis does not
occur with an increase of the temperature, and the properties are
changing continuously. However, the change of values is signifi-
cant, especially the specific heat has a large peak near the pseudo-
critical point that is around 15 times higher than at any other point.
The other parameters are ca. 5e8 times lower at supercritical
conditions than at subcritical temperature. Thermal conductivity
can be characterized by a small peak just before the pseudo-critical
point, whereas viscosity has the lowest value right after pseudo-
critical point and slightly increases with a rise in temperature.
Nevertheless, the value of this property is much lower than at
subcritical conditions. The only parameter that continuously de-
creases with temperature is density.
Despite the lack of boiling crisis, it is possible to observe heat
transfer deterioration (HTD) phenomenon in specific conditions
that may lead to undefined, nevertheless much smaller than in
comparison to dry out, the rise in peak cladding temperature (PCT).
HTD is not completely defined until this day since it behaves
differently than boiling crisis. Therefore, most of the current re-
searches are focused on the determination of the mechanism of
HTD and how to avoid it. On the other hand, sometimes enhance-
ment of heat transfer (EHT) occurs, however, to be conservative in
the safety analysis, the heat transfer enhancement is not being
Fig. 1. Thermal properties of water at 25.5 MPa.
taken into account. Previously, all estimations related to safety in
NPP were conservative and therefore, were evaluated with safety
margins and always at the worst possible conditions that may occur
in the investigated system. Nowadays, the nuclear industry and
research tend to use best estimate methods such as CFD compu-
tations with uncertainty evaluation.
The study was conducted using available ANSYS Fluent code.
Geometry consists of fluid volume with the following boundary
conditions: mass flow inlet, pressure outlet, axis, and wall. The
mesh was validated against available data with uniform heat flux.
The non-uniform heat flux was programmed in User Defined
Function (UDF) file based on the position in the axial direction. The
turbulence model used in the numerical investigation was low-
Reynolds k-u Shear Stress Transport (SST), and this model has
proven its ability to accurately simulate supercritical flow (Palko
and Anglart, 2008; Wen and Gu, 2010). Numerical investigation
answers the question how the wall temperature distribution along
fuel rod behaves under non-uniform heat flux at the wall. The PCT
cannot exceed safety limits during operation and therefore, it has to
be proven that under non-uniform heat flux it is possible to achieve
required outlet temperature without sacrificing any of the safety
criteria.
2. Methodology e numerical approach
Since the experimental investigation is expensive due to the fact
that it requires building a facility that will be able to perform either
scaled or non-scaled experiment, it is convenient to use numerical
methods. The numerical methods may also save significant re-
sources in terms of expensive instrumentation required to collect
data during the tests. Use of computer analysis may be much
cheaper and more efficient since it is much easier to increase
computational power. Therefore, use of numerical approach at the
early design stage is appropriable.
One of the most common way to simulate real experiment is to
use Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). It is a powerful tool that
allows one to predict with satisfactory accuracy the phenomena
ongoing during an experiment with the only use of a computer.
 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25 13

Hence, many researchers have tried to perform calculations using

commercial or self-developed CFD software.
The water properties during the transition from sub-to super-
critical conditions varies significantly and therefore, it may affect
the accuracy of calculations. The “NIST Reference Fluid Thermo-
dynamic and Transport Properties Database (REFPROP)” contains
properties data tables of many different fluids at sub- and super-
critical conditions including water and carbon dioxide that are
going to be used in Generation IV nuclear reactors. The water
properties are based on work conducted by J. Kestin et al (Kestin
et al., 1984; Kestin and Sengers, 1986). and J. V. Sengers et al.
(Sengers et al., 1984; Huber et al., 2009), they are based on Helm-
holtz free energy. Thus, it is possible to either create an UDF file
with water properties or use incorporated in commercial software
NIST real gas model. Since ANSYS Fluent has incorporated REFPROP
database, this software was used to perform calculations.
Solver used to perform pressure based calculations uses SIMPLE Fig. 2. Normalized heat flux distribution along the axis with different N1 and N2
scheme. Second order discretization was used for pressure, density, values.
momentum, and energy to solve the main governing equation,
while first order scheme was used for turbulent kinetic energy and
specific dissipation rate. In order to ensure sufficient accuracy Table 1
Values of N1 and N2 for different investigated case.
convergence criteria were set to residuals of 10
6 for continuity and
energy. Case No. Variables

Case 1 N/A e uniform heat flux

2.1. Axial power distribution
Heat flux distribution is a reflection of power generation inside
the fuel element, it depends on burn-up, enrichment variation,
moderation, and a burnable neutron absorber. As it is commonly
known the fission reaction in nuclear fuel occurs at the much
higher rate when sufficient moderation is provided. In typical
PWRs, the power curve can be assumed to be a sinusoid with a peak
in the middle of the fuel channel. However, in SCWRs during the
transition from sub-to supercritical conditions the density de-
creases significantly and therefore the moderation decreases to-
wards the outlet. This phenomenon causes the peak of power
distribution to move from the middle position towards the channel
inlet (as it was shown by Tashakor et al. (2012).). On the other hand,
in LWRs during different stages of the fuel cycle, the power distri-
bution is changing and the peak moves towards the inlet, similar to
the predicted distribution of SCWR. Blakeman and March-Leuba
(1989) used the following formula to describe power distribution
shape at various stages of the cycle:
h  iN2
JðzÞ ¼ sin pðx=HÞ1=N1
where:
x e distance from the inlet, H e total height of the element, N1 e
parameter that controls the height of heat flux peak, N2 e
parameter that controls the slope of heat flux.
Case 2 N1 ¼ 1, N2 ¼ 1
Case 3 N1 ¼ 4, N2 ¼ 1
Case 4 N1 ¼ 4, N2 ¼ 0.6
Case 5 N1 ¼ 4, N2 ¼ 0.2
2.2. Geometry
Computational domain was simplified from full 3D model to 2D
axisymmetrical geometry in order to optimize time needed for
computations. It is possible due to the shape of the model and the
direction of the applied forces i.e. gravity and mass flux. The model
used is based on Ornatsky experiment (Ornatsky et al., 1970) i.e. the
vertical pipe of 1.05 m length and 3mm diameter (Fig. 3). This
particular example was used since the data collected is within the
operating parameters of typical SCWR. To ensure that the results
would not be influenced by flow development, two additional
domains of the length of 50 mm at the inlet and the outlet were
added. Therefore, the flow is developed at the inlet to the heated
region and bulk flow at the outlet can stabilize.
The geometry was created and meshed in GAMBIT software.
Then the mesh was validated both in radial and axial directions. In
(1) every mesh the main criteria was to obtain y þ value below unity, as
it was found in the literature review, only then the numerical
investigation can be accurate. The main reason is that the Low-
Reynolds k e u SST turbulent model does not use any wall func-
tions. Since y þ can be defined as the non-dimensional distance
between the wall and the first computational node, the first node

Modifications of N1 and N2 make it possible to change the heat

flux distribution in two ways, either flatter the curve or shift the
peak to the front (Fig. 2). Therefore, it is possible to obtain distri-
bution at different stages of fuel cycle or different degrees of
moderation along the axis.
Five different cases were evaluated in order to better under-
stand how the power distributions can influence wall temperature
distribution along the axis. The reference case 1 has applied uni-
form heat flux, whereas the other 4 cases used eq. (1) to simulate
different power distributions. Table 1 shows a summary of all Fig. 3. Diagram of the geometry and boundary conditions (dimensions in mm, model
investigated cases. is unscaled).
14 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25

Fig. 4. Mesh comparison in radial direction. Different interval count.

was placed 0.0005mm from the wall. Therefore, the y þ value varies
in the range of 0.3e0.7.
First, the validation was performed in the radial direction
(Fig. 4). The mesh of 125 interval counts in the radial direction was
chosen for further investigation since the result was placed be-
tween meshes of 150 and 175 interval counts and it is sufficiently
accurate to the experimental solution. Only 150 interval counts
were closer to the data, however, the difference between 125 and
150 meshes are negligible. In axial dimension three meshes were
investigated, each of them has different interval size i.e. 0.5mm,
1mm and 2mm (Fig. 5). The mesh of 2mm interval size has the best
accuracy among the others. Therefore, for later computations, mesh
with 125 intervals counts in radial direction and interval size of
2mm in the axial direction was used.
2.3. Boundary and operating conditions
Boundary and operating conditions were taken from Ornatsky
experiment, and a simplified diagram is shown in Fig. 3. The
following boundary conditions were set: mass flow inlet, pressure
outlet, axis and wall (where heat flux is applied). In all investigated
cases, the mass flux (G) of 1500 kg m
2 s
1, inlet temperature (Tin)
of 368.91 K and gravity acceleration of 9.81 m s
2 is constant, only
heat flux (q00 ) varies. The reference case 1 is characterized by uni-
form q00 of 1810 kW m
2, while the remaining cases are non-
uniform as was explained in section 2.1. The heat flux was
normalized to achieve an average q00 as in the reference case.
Operating pressure is 25.5 MPa, it is above the critical point.
The heat transfer coefficient (HTC) was calculated according to

Fig. 5. Mesh comparison in axial direction. Different interval size.

 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25 15

the following equation:  

00 v eI þ 12 v r  
q 1
h¼ (2) þ V$vr eI þ v2
Tw
Tb vt 2
00 000
¼
V$q þ g$vr
V$vp þ V$ðt$vÞ þ q (7)
where: q00 e local heat flux, Tw e local wall temperature, and Tb e
local bulk temperature. where: eI e internal specific energy, v e velocity, q00 e heat flux.
Whereas the Nusselt number is calculated as follow:

hL 2.3.2. Turbulence models

Nu ¼
k
where: h e the HTC calculated from equation (2), L e the charac-
teristic length (hydraulic diameter in our calculations), and k e bulk
thermal conductivity.
Numerical Approach
The computational fluid dynamics is based on Navier-Stokes
equations, unfortunately, it is impossible to solve it analytically
for every kind of flow pattern. Therefore, numerical methods that
simplify it are used i.e. a model that approximate fluid structure.
2.3.1. Governing equations
The fluid mechanics is based on three fundamental principles,
namely on the laws of conservation of mass, momentum, and en-
ergy, as discussed below.
(3) Until this day, many turbulent models have been developed.
They can be divided into many categories but the most important is
the trade-off between computation time and accuracy. In the best
case, the algorithm should be accurate and efficient/fast. Unfortu-
nately, those two requirements are in contradiction due to the fact
that turbulent flow is a complex problem and the accuracy depends
on how many parameters are taken into account during
computation.
Different turbulent models are commonly used in most of the
commercial and non-commercial CFD codes. Moreover, every code
has a couple of turbulent models built-in in order to choose the one
that is the most convenient in investigated case. The following
subsections are based on ANSYS Theory Guide (ANSYS®, 2012a;
ANSYS®, 2012b) and they represent a couple of commonly used
turbulent models. They describe k e ε, k e u, and Shear-Stress
Transport (SST) k e u turbulent models that belong to a group of
RANS (Reynolds-averaged NaviereStokes) turbulent models. Those
models are commonly used in research and industrial application
due to the best trade-off between computation time and accuracy.

2.3.1.1. Mass conservation. The mass conservation states that the 2.3.2.1. k e ε turbulent model. One of the most commonly used
mass in investigated system cannot be created nor destroyed, hence turbulent models in the free turbulent stream is k e ε model. It is a
it must remain constant. In other words, the mass of all inlets has to semi-empirical model that is based on transport equation model of
be equal to the mass at all outlets. This can be written as: turbulence kinetic energy (k) and its dissipation rate (ε) and
therefore, it can be said that it is a two-equation model. The tur-
V$v ¼ 0 (4) bulence kinetic energy k and dissipation rate ε are obtained from
transport equations:
where: v e velocity vector.
"  #
v v v m vk
ðrkÞ þ ðrkui Þ ¼ mþ t þ Gk þ Gb þ rε
YM þ Sk
2.3.1.2. Momentum conservation. The momentum conservation is
vt vxi vxj sk vxj
based on Newton's second law, which states that the acceleration of (8)
an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting
upon the object and the mass of the object. Therefore, the mo- and
mentum conservation equation has form of following differential "  #
equation: v v v m vε ε
ðrεÞ þ ðrεui Þ ¼ mþ t þ C1ε ðGk þ C3ε Gb Þ
vt vxi vxj sk vxj k
V$rvv ¼
Vp þ V$t þ rg (5)
ε2

C2ε r þ Sε
where: r e density, p e pressure, t e shear stress vector, g e the k
gravity acceleration. (9)

2.3.1.3. Energy conservation. The energy conservation is based on
the first law of thermodynamics, which states that the total energy
of the isolated system is constant. Since the energy cannot be
created or destroyed it can only be transformed from one form to
another. In case of fluid volume, it might be represented by:
 
V$ rcp vT ¼ kV2 T
where: ET e the total energy of the fluid including potential and
kinetic energy, q e is the heat added to the control volume per unit
time, P e is the work done by the system by the unit time.
The corresponding energy conservation equation in differential
form can be expressed as:
where:
Gk e generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to mean ve-
locity gradients, Gb e generation of turbulence kinetic energy
due to buoyancy, YM e contribution to fluctuation dilatation in
compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate, C1ε, C2ε,
C3ε e are constants determined from experiments with air and
(6) water, sk and sε e the turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and ε,
respectively, and Sk and Sε e user-defined source terms.
This model is only valid for fully turbulent flows. It is possible to
distinguish three versions of k e ε model and the differences are in
accuracy for different types of flow e.g. low and high Reynolds
numbers.
16 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25

2.3.2.2. k e u turbulent model. The standard k e u model was During the years researchers tried to find a formula valid in both
developed by Wilcox (Wilcox and I. DCW Industries, 1998) that sub- and supercritical region. It is possible to distinguish two ap-
predicts free shear flow spreading rates. It is an empirical model proaches i.e. modification of Dittus-Boelter's equation or derivation
based on transport equations for turbulence kinetic energy (k) and of new correlations.
the specific dissipation rate (u), which is basically a ratio of ε and k. In 1957, Shitsman (Pioro et al., 2004) proposed a new formula
! based on the Dittus-Boelter relation:
v v v vk
ðrkÞ þ ðrkui Þ ¼ Gk þ Gk
Yk þ Sk (10)
vt vxi vxj vxj Nu ¼ 0:0243Re0:8 0:8
b Prmin (13)

and where Reb e states for Reynolds number calculated at a bulk fluid
! temperature and Prmin e states Prandtl number calculated at either
v v v vu bulk fluid temperature or the wall surface temperature, depending
ðruÞ þ ðruui Þ ¼ Gu þ Gu
Yu þ Su (11)
vt vxi vxj vxj on which is smaller.
Krasnoshchekov and Protopopov in 1959 (Pioro et al., 2004)
where: proposed a new formula for forced convective heat transfer in
water and carbon dioxide (CO2):
Gk e generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to mean ve-
locity gradients, Gu e generation of u, YM and Yu e dissipation of  0:11  
0:33  0:35
mb kb cb
k and u, GM and Gu e effective diffusivity of k, and u, Sk and Sε e Nu ¼ Nu0 (14)
mw kw cpw
user-defined source terms.
where:
The k e u predicts with sufficient accuracy all effects at near wall
since it does not have to use any wall functions, while the flow in
the free stream is not so accurate. ðx=8ÞReb Pr
Nu0 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2=3  (15)
12:7 ðx=8Þ Pr
1 1:07
2.3.2.3. Shear-Stress Transport (SST) k e u model. The SST model
was developed in order to combine accurate prediction of k e u at and:
near wall region with the performance of k e ε in the free stream in
the far field of the flow. It is done by converting k e ε model into k e 1
u with the use of multiplications results from both models by x¼ (16)
blending function and adding them together. Hence, the blending ð1:82 log10 Reb
1:64Þ2
function is unity in near-wall region in order to use k e u model and
where subscript b e states for evaluation at bulk temperature, w e
zero away from the surface and therefore, k e ε model is used. It can
for evaluation at wall temperature. The Prandtl number and specific
be concluded that the SST k e u combines k e u and k e ε in order to
heat should be averaged over the ranges of thermophysical varia-
provide accurate results both at near wall and in the free stream.
tions. The above correlation is valid in the range of pressure be-
Hence, it can be used in a wider spectrum of applications. More-
tween 22.3 and 32 MPa for water and 8.3 MPa for CO2.
over, researchers such as Wen and Gu and Kao et al (Wen and Gu,
Another common correlation for Nusselt number is the one
2011; Kao et al., 2010). have validated few turbulent models
developed by Bishop et al. (1964). proposed in 1964. The correlation
against supercritical flows and concluded that SST k e u is the most
was based on experiments done under following conditions:
accurate.
pressure in the range of 22.8e27.6 MPa, bulk temperature
282e527  C, mass flux of 651e3662 kg m
2 and heat flux of
2.4. Convective heat transfer 0.31e3.46 MW m
2.

During the years many empirical and semi-empirical correlation  0:43  

were formulated in order to predict the heat transfer coefficient in rw D
Nux ¼ 0:0069Re0:9 0:66
x Prx 1 þ 2:4 (17)
the supercritical flow. Therefore, the numerical investigation is rb x x
followed by a comparison of experimental and simulation results
with six correlation to find if any of available correlation is able to where D is the diameter of the pipe and x is an axial position.
correctly predict the obtained values of Nusselt number, hence the Swenson et al., in 1965 (Pioro et al., 2004) had found that
HTC. standard correlation for HTC is not valid in a rapid change of
The most common relation for Nusselt number is the one pro- properties during transition from sub-to supercritical environment
posed by Dittus-Boelter in 1930 (Zang et al., 2014): and therefore the following expression is recommended:

Nu ¼ 0:023Re0:8 Prn  0:923    

(12) hD DG ðHw
Hb Þmw 0:613 rw 0:231
¼ 0:00459 (18)
kw mw ðTw
Tb Þkw rb
it is valid for ratio of pipe length to diameter L/DH > 60, Reynolds
number Re > 10,000 and Prandtl number 0.7 < Pr < 100. The The following ranges of experimental results were used to
exponent n is equal to 0.4 for heating and 0.3 for cooling. The develop the correlation: pressure 22.8e41.4 MPa, mass flux
properties should be estimated at mean temperature i.e. bulk 542e2150 kg m
2s
1, wall temperature from 93 to 649  C and bulk
temperature. In our calculations, the n exponent has a value of 0.4. fluid temperature within 75e576  C. Hence, it covers the greatest
Albeit the fact that this correlation was not developed specifically spectrum of the results. Moreover, it also yields good accuracy with
for supercritical flow estimation, it is used here for comparison CO2.
since it is the most commonly used formula for computation of HTC Ornatsky et al., in 1970 (Ornatsky et al., 1970) proposed a vari-
in the case of forced convection in turbulent flows. ation of Shitsman's relation as follow:
 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25 17

Fig. 6. HTC and temperature distributions against distance from the inlet. Reference case 1.

 0:3 are compared with the prediction of convective heat transfer co-
rw efficient calculated as described in section 2.4.
Nu ¼ 0:0243Re0:8 0:8
b Prmin (19)
rb

where subscript b e states for evaluation at bulk temperature, w e
for evaluation at wall temperature. The above correlation was based
on his team's experimental data.
3. Results and discussion
Our results provide information on how the wall temperature
responses to uniform and non-uniform heat flux. The main
emphasis is on the correlation between the wall temperature and
heat transfer coefficient in particular cases. The numerical results
3.1. Uniform heat flux
3.1.1. Temperature and HTC
The uniform heat flux computations is a benchmark case for the
results with non-uniform heat flux. Case 1 shows in Fig. 6 the
distribution of heat transfer coefficient (HTC) and temperatures
distribution along the pipe in reference case i.e. the heat flux is
constant. The rapid changes of HTC and wall temperature at the
inlet and the outlet are related to the fact that the heated wall is
connected to two faces that are not heated and therefore, they are
not taken into further consideration. Wall temperature distribution

Fig. 7. Comparison of numerical investigation results with analytical prediction and with Ornatsky results.
18 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25

Fig. 8. HTC and temperature distributions against distance from the inlet. Case 2, N1 ¼ 1, N2 ¼ 1.

at the inlet of the pipe is linear, at around 0.6 m from the inlet the
temperature rises quickly as HTC decreases i.e. the HTD phenom-
enon occurs. However, once the HTC stabilizes and starts to in-
creases again, the temperature starts to decrease before the outlet.
The peak wall temperature is 802.85 K. The bulk temperature in-
creases nearly linearly with the distance from the inlet.
3.1.2. HTC investigation
The results of Nusselt number comparison between Ornatsky
experimental results, numerical and the analytical investigation is
shown in Fig. 7. Numerical results tend to slightly under predict the
convection effect, however, it is the closest to the results obtained
by Ornatsky in his experiments (uniform heat flux) in the whole
range of coolant enthalpy. While most of the analytical solutions
are able to predict the place where HTD occurs (except Dittus-
Boelter's and Shitsman's correlations), the results are usually over
predicted. Swenson's correlation is the best example of over pre-
diction, while most of the correlations can be characterized by
small peak right before the occurrence of HTD, this shows 3e4.5
times higher peak than any other result. The Krasnoshchekov and
Protopopov's formula over predicts the results while the physics of
HTD is preserved. The Bishop's and Ornatsky's formulas are the
most accurate in the case of analytical analysis. At the subcritical
region both shows very good agreement with experimental data,
while after HTD they tend to over predict the convective heat
transfer. However, the Bishop's correlation shows the result to be
closer to the experiment in a higher range of coolant enthalpy.
3.2. Non-uniform heat flux
The results of non-uniform heat flux i.e. cases 2e5 are presented
in this section. The results show that it is possible to achieve lower
maximum wall temperature. Nevertheless, the outlet temperature
in every case is the same i.e. 660 K. As it was shown in Fig. 2 the heat
flux at the inlet and outlet are zero, hence the values do not change
rapidly at those points when non-uniform heat flux is applied. The
investigation emphasis is put on the wall temperature distribution.
The conduction heat transfer from the heated region to the un-
heated regions is not included.

Fig. 9. HTC and temperature distributions against distance from the inlet. Case 3, N1 ¼ 4, N2 ¼ 1.
Fig. 10. HTC and temperature distributions against distance from the inlet. Case 4, N1 ¼ 4, N2 ¼ 0.6.

Fig. 11. HTC and temperature distributions against distance from the inlet. Case 5, N1 ¼ 4, N2 ¼ 0.2.

Fig. 12. Comparison of numerical investigation results with analytical prediction in case 3.
20 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25
3.2.1. Temperature and HTC
The case 2 (Fig. 8) shows the highest maximum wall tempera-
ture among all considered cases i.e. 1117.56 K. It is not a surprise
since the peak heat flux value is in the middle of the pipe, it is near
the place where HTD is most likely to occur. HTD can be easily
noticed at around 0.5 m from the inlet, hence with rapid decrease of
HTC, the wall temperature increases rapidly with a peak around
0.7 m from the inlet. Then the temperature decreases with the swift
increase of HTC towards the outlet.
The heat flux in case 3 (Fig. 9) has higher peak value than the
case 2, however, due to the fact that it is moved to the front, the
maximum wall temperature is more than 100 K lower (1000.83 K).
Nevertheless, it is still significantly higher than in the reference
case. The decrease of the HTD is smoother than in case 2, moreover,
the bulk critical temperature is achieved closer to the inlet and the
peak wall temperature is around 0.3 m from the inlet.
Albeit the fact that the peak heat flux value in case 4 is not the
lowest and it is placed at the inlet region similar to case 3. The HTC
is steady and constant until about 0.45 m from the inlet where HTD
Fig. 13. Bulk flow properties distribution, case 1 (top) and case 3 (bottom).
phenomenon can be observed (Fig. 10). The maximum wall tem-
perature can be found at a 0.5 m distance from the inlet. Moreover,
the maximum wall temperature is slightly higher than in reference
case, where uniform heat flux was applied and the value is 818 K.
Fig. 11 shows the correlation between temperature and HTC in
case 5. This case is characterized by the most uniform heat flux
among others and by the lowest maximum wall temperature
among the investigated cases with non-uniform heat flux. The
maximum value is lower than any other investigated cases
including the reference one, the value is 776.23 K. It is placed
around 0.6 m from the inlet and it is followed by a rather rapid
decrease of temperature.
3.2.2. HTC investigation
The results of Nusselt number are used to make a comparison
between analytical solutions proposed over the years by different
researchers and the results obtained during the numerical inves-
tigation of case 3 (Fig. 12). Again, the Dittus-Boelter's correlation is
unable to predict the HTD phenomenon. This time, Shitsman's
 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25
formula is able to predict it, nevertheless, the Nusselt number is
over predicted in the whole range of enthalpy. Swenson's correla-
tion shows a high peak around the place where HTD occurs which
is followed by under prediction of the results after HTD occurs. The
Krasnoshchekov and Protopopov's formula over predict the
convective heat transfer in the whole spectrum of enthalpy, how-
ever, it is able to show where approximately HTD occurs. Again,
Bishop's and Ornatsky's formulas show the best agreement with
the simulation results. However, it is unable to choose the best
correlation since the Bishop's formula is more accurate at the lower
enthalpy range and Ornatsky's correlation follows the trend in
higher ranges.
3.2.3. Properties distribution
Similar comparison was done for bulk flow. Fig. 13 shows how
the bulk flow properties vary downstream. Reference case 1 (top)
and case 3 looks very alike, the main difference is the range of
particular properties and how fast they change. Especially, the
specific heat maximum value in case 3 is nearly twice as much the
Fig. 14. Properties distribution along the pipe wall, case 1 (top) and case 3 (bottom).
21
reference case. It can be noticed that in the reference case the
specific heat at the outlet does not reach a peak point, whereas in
case 3 it can be observed the curve has shape sinusoid-like and is
about to turn its direction or stabilize. All other properties reach
their minimum value at the outlet. In case 3 the properties tend to
stabilize at the exit.
Case 3 is the most interesting one since the heat flux distribu-
tion is the closest to the power distribution found in calculations
done by Tashakor et al. (2012). Therefore, comparison of the
properties distribution along the pipe wall between case 1 (top)
and case 3 (bottom) is shown in Fig. 14. In each case, the peak of
specific heat indicates where the transition from sub-to supercrit-
ical at the wall occur and moreover where HTD starts. Other
properties i.e. thermal conductivity, viscosity and density rapidly
decrease during the transition. When non-uniform heat flux is
applied on the wall the properties fluctuates downstream after the
occurrence of HTD. Whereas, the properties downstream are rather
constant when uniform heat flux is applied. The differences are
especially visible close to the outlet of the investigated domain. In
22 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25

Fig. 15. Radial distribution of fluid properties at different axial locations in case 1 (left) and case 3 (right).
 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25 23

Fig. 16. Wall temperature dependence on mass flux in case 3.

case 3 it is possible to distinguish the second peak of specific heat at
the pipe exit, it due to the decrease of heat flux and when its value
tends to zero the specific heat value gets close to the bulk flow
value. Similar with other properties, they increase downstream due
to lower values of heat flux, hence, tend to reach values of bulk flow
values.
Comparison of radial fluid properties at different axial positions
between case 1 and case 3 is shown in Fig. 15. The radius distance is
normalized and limited only to the part of interest e close to the
wall, where the properties vary the most. The first cross section at
distance of 600mm and 150mm (case 1 and case 3, respectively)
from the inlet is located roughly where HTD starts to occur, the
following cross sections are located at the early phase of HTD, at the
place where highest temperature was found, when the wall tem-
perature starts to decrease and when the wall temperature de-
creases. The values of specific heat are higher in case 1, especially
the value located at last measured cross section is much higher.
Moreover, the peak's width at each axial location is wider. What is
worth to notice is the fact that the peaks at first two locations in
case 1 are very similar, whereas the peak at a second location in
case 3 is lower than at first location. The bulk specific heat increases
downstream.
Viscosity behaves very similarly in both described cases. How-
ever, the values in case 1 are much more similar to each other and
have lower values. The case 3 values have a wider spread and are
15e20% higher. Close to the wall, the properties values decrease
only to increase rapidly close to the pipe centre at all locations
(except the first one). The most significant difference is the fact that
this decrease in values is more significant in case 3. The bulk vis-
cosity decreases downstream.
Density behaves similar in both investigated cases, the only
difference is the fact that the values have higher values in case 3.
The trend is the same in both cases. The bulk density decreases
downstream.

Fig. 17. Wall temperature dependence on operational pressure in case 3.

24 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25
Thermal conductivity behaves similar to viscosity, case 3 is
characterized by the wider spread of values and higher values in
general. The case 3 also has a small decrease in value close to the
wall. What is worth to mention is the fact that the rapid increase of
thermal conductivity is followed by almost instant stabilization.
Again, the bulk values decrease towards downstream.
3.3. Mass flux and pressure influence
As it was mentioned in the previous subsection, the case 3 is the
most interesting from our point of view. Hence, the aforementioned
case was further investigated to check how mass flux and operating
pressure would influence the wall temperature distribution. In both
cases the values varies from
5% to þ5% of the reference values.
Variation in mass flux from 1425 to 1575 kg m
2 s
1 influences
temperature distribution significantly (Fig. 16). Especially, the
smaller amount of coolant flow causes a high rise in temperature
distribution and moves the HTD phenomenon closer to the pipe
inlet. The maximum wall temperature is 1157 K.
The operating pressure has less influence on the wall temper-
ature distribution than the variation of the mass flux. As it is shown
in Fig. 17, the maximum temperature barely achieves 1106 K at
operating pressure of 26.775MPa, the HTD phenomenon occurs at
almost the same position as in the case with default operating
pressure.
4. Conclusions
The numerical investigation of water flow at supercritical con-
ditions in a vertical pipe at non-uniform heat flux at the wall has led
to the following conclusions. Wall temperature distribution along
the axis is higher in three cases where non-uniform heat flux was
applied than the reference uniform case, whereas in only one case
the maximum wall temperature was smaller. Therefore, it can be
concluded that by adjusting the shape of heat flux distribution
curve it is possible to achieve lower temperatures. Assuring higher
safety margins. This behavior is believed to be due to the fact that
the heat flux peak is moved upstream where the coolant is
subcritical and has better cooling abilities, moreover, the heat flux
peak is lower. Hence, case 5 have the lowest maximum wall tem-
perature among all investigated cases, including the reference one
where uniform heat flux was applied.
The occurrence of heat transfer deterioration (HTD) phenome-
non is moved upstream the pipe even if the heat flux peak is in the
middle of the pipe. Heat transfer coefficient (HTC) behaves differ-
ently than in constant heat flux case. The HTC tends to be uniform
until the point where the HTD occurs, whereas when uniform heat
flux was applied the HTC was increasing.
The comparison of numerical investigation with analytical so-
lutions and experimental data taken from Ornatsky experiment
shown that numerical investigation has great advantages. While
most of the analytical methods are able to predict the occurrence of
HTD, only Bishop's and Shitsman's correlations are able to follow
the trend. Unfortunately, in both cases, the results are over pre-
dicted at high values of enthalpy. Similar comparison was prepared
for case 3 since no experimental data was available, the comparison
is only between numerical and analytical solutions. This time, only
Dittus-Boelter correlation was unable to predict the occurrence of
HTD. Again, the Bishop's and Ornatsky's correlations are the closest
to the numerical solution, however, while Ornatsky's formula over
predicts the values it follows the trend for the whole range of
enthalpy.
It was found that the properties distribution along the wall are
slightly different in two compared cases i.e. when uniform heat flux
is applied and when applied non-uniform heat flux is similar to the
power distribution curve predicted in a real reactor. The specific
heat is higher in case 1, however, all other properties are higher in
case 3. What is interesting is the fact that the viscosity and thermal
conductivity decrease close to the wall in case 3. Resulting in less
efficient heat removal than in case 1, where aforementioned
properties are either stable or increases slowly close to the wall.
Therefore, the maximum wall temperature is higher in case 3.
Sensitivity investigation in the case of mass flux and operating
pressure was also conducted. It was found that the temperature
distribution is more sensitive to changes in mass flux i.e. the Rey-
nolds number. The 5% difference in this parameter changes not only
the temperature distribution but also the place where HTD occurs,
whereas variation in operating pressure influences only the tem-
perature distribution along the axis.
References
ANSYS®, 2012. Academic Research, Release 12.0, Theory Guide, 4.4 Standard, RNG,
and Realizable k-epsilon Models. ANSYS, Inc.
ANSYS®, 2012. Academic Research, Release 12.0, Theory Guide, 4.5 Standard and
SST k - Omega Models. ANSYS, Inc.
Bishop, A.A., Sandberg, R.O., Tong, L.S., 1964. Forced Convection Heat Transfer to
Water at Near-critical Temperatures and Supercritical Pressures. P.I. Report
WCAP-2056, Editor. Westinghouse Electric Corp., Pittsburgh, USA.
Blakeman, E.D. and J. March-Leuba, A Parametric Analysis Of Decay Ratio Calcula-
tions In A Boiling Water Reactor Model, in Seventh Power Plant Dynamics,
Control and Testing Symposium. 1989: Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.
GIF, 2002. A Technology Road Map for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.
GIF, 2009. GIF R&D Outlook for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.
Gu, H.Y., Cheng, X., Yang, Y.H., 2008. CFD analysis of thermalehydraulic behavior in
SCWR typical flow channels. Nucl. Eng. Des. 238 (12), 3348e3359.
Huber, M.L., et al., 2009. New international formulation for the Viscosity of H 2 O.
J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 38.
Jaromin, M., Anglart, H., 2013. A numerical study of heat transfer to supercritical
water flowing upward in vertical tubes under normal and deteriorated condi-
tions. Nucl. Eng. Des. 264 (0), 61e70.
Kao, M.-T., et al., 2010. Heat transfer deterioration in a supercritical water channel.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 240 (10), 3321e3328.
Kestin, J., Sengers, J.V., 1986. New international formulations for the thermody-
namic properties of light and heavy water. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 15.
Kestin, J., et al., 1984. Thermophysical properties of fluid H2O. J. Phys. Chem.
Ref. Data 13.
Koshizuka, S., Takano, N., Oka, Y., 1995. Numerical analysis of deterioration phe-
nomena in heat transfer to supercritical water. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 38 (16),
3077e3084.
Liu, Q., Oka, Y., 2013. Core design for super fast reactor with all upward flow core
cooling. Ann. Nucl. Energy 57 (0), 221e229.
Oka, Y., et al., 1995. Supercritical-pressure, light-water-cooled reactors for
improving economy, safety, plutonium utilization and environment. Prog. Nucl.
Energy 29 (Suppl. (0)), 431e438.
Ornatsky, A.P., L.P. Glushchenko, and E.T. Siomin. The research of temperature
conditions of small diameter parallel tubes cooled by water under supercritical
pressures. in Proceedings of the Fourth International Heat Transfer. 1970. Paris-
Versailles, France.
Palko, D., Anglart, H., 2008. Theoretical and numerical study of heat transfer
deterioration in high performance light water reactor. Sci. Technol. Nucl. In-
stallations 2008, 5.
Pioro, I.L., Duffey, R.B., 2005. Experimental heat transfer in supercritical water
flowing inside channels (survey). Nucl. Eng. Des. 235 (22), 2407e2430.
Pioro, I.L., Khartabil, H.F., Duffey, R.B., 2004. Heat transfer to supercritical fluids
flowing in channelsdempirical correlations (survey). Nucl. Eng. Des. 230 (1e3),
69e91.
Rowinski, M.K., White, T.J., Zhao, J., 2015. Small and Medium sized Reactors (SMR): a
review of technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44 (0), 643e656.
Schulenberg, T., Leung, L.K.H., Oka, Y., November 2014. Review of R&D for super-
critical water cooled reactors. Prog. Nucl. Energy 77, 282e299.
Sengers, J.V., et al., 1984. Representative equations for the thermal conductivity of
water substance. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 13.
Squarer, D., et al., 2003. High performance light water reactor. Nucl. Eng. Des. 221
(1e3), 167e180.
Tashakor, S., et al., 2012. Neutronic analysis of HPLWR fuel assembly cluster. Ann.
Nucl. Energy 50 (0), 38e43.
Tashakor, S., et al., 2013. Thermalehydraulic analysis of HPLWR fuel assembly
cluster. J. Supercrit. Fluids 77 (0), 91e99.
Wang, H., et al., 2012. Heat transfer characteristic of water at near critical pressure
in circumferentially non-uniformly heated vertical tubes. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 54
(0), 167e175.
Wang, H., et al., 2014. Experimental investigation of heat transfer from a 2x2 rod
bundle to supercritical pressure water. Nucl. Eng. Des. 275 (0), 205e218.
Wen, Q.L., Gu, H.Y., 2010. Numerical simulation of heat transfer deterioration
 M.K. Rowinski et al. / Progress in Nuclear Energy 97 (2017) 11e25 25

phenomenon in supercritical water through vertical tube. Ann. Nucl. Energy 37
(10), 1272e1280.
Wen, Q.L., Gu, H.Y., 2011. Numerical investigation of acceleration effect on heat
transfer deterioration phenomenon in supercritical water. Prog. Nucl. Energy 53
(5), 480e486.
Wilcox, D.C., 1998. In: I. DCW Industries (Ed.), Turbulence Modeling for CFD. La
Canada, California.
Zang, J., et al., 2014. A method of extending subcritical heat transfer correlations to
supercritical conditions. Nucl. Eng. Des. 266 (0), 186e193.