Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 66–76

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Research Paper

A new criterion for the onset of heat transfer deterioration to supercritical T

water in vertically-upward smooth tubes
Xiangfei Kong, Huixiong Li , Qian Zhang, Kaikai Guo, Qing Luo, Xianliang Lei
⁎

State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710049, PR China

HIGHLIGHTS

• An experimental data base for heat transfer of supercritical water is established.

• 8A existing criteria for calculating q are assessed against the data base.
• new criterion for q is proposed by considering the effect of G, P and d.
dht

dht

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The heat transfer characteristics of supercritical water, Deteriorated Heat Transfer (DHT) in particular, is crucial
Heat transfer to the safety of supercritical devices. It became imperative to develop a new criterion with extensive applic-
Deteriorated heat transfer ability and high prediction accuracy, to determine whether the operating conditions are safe. To achieve this, a
Supercritical water broad-based review was conducted to collect experimental heat transfer data of supercritical water flowing in
Criterion
vertically-upward smooth tubes. The experimental data base consisted of 9705 data points, and the numbers of
the Non-DHT and DHT cases were 109 and 64, respectively. Based on the data base, 8 criteria for predicting
critical heat flux causing the onset of the DHT (qdht) were assessed and compared thoroughly. It was observed
that Yamagata’s criterion showed the best prediction accuracy among the existing criteria. However, Yamagata’s
criterion was still insufficient in predicting the DHT conditions. For improvement, further analyses were con-
ducted and the author believed that increasing pressure and decreasing the tube diameter might suppress the
occurrence of the DHT under the same conditions, and lead to an increase in qdht. However, the effects of mass
flux, pressure and tube diameter on qdht were not considered simultaneously by the earlier researchers. Thus, this
paper recognized the need and developed a new criterion which considered the effects of mass flux, tube dia-
meter, and pressure comprehensively. The prediction accuracy of this new criterion for the Non-DHT and DHT
were both higher than 90%, and the overall prediction accuracy was 94.25% which was higher than that of
existing criteria.

1. Introduction
Supercritical pressure water are characterized by a pressure greater
than the critical pressure of 22.064 MPa. As is well known, the line of
distinction between liquid and gas disappears under supercritical con-
ditions. Hence, the departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) which occurs
regularly under subcritical pressures could be avoided under super-
critical conditions. Moreover, the thermal physical properties of su-
percritical fluids experience a dramatic change in the region near the
pseudo-critical point (as shown in Fig. 1) and the heat transfer could be
enhanced greatly because the Cp has a maximum value at the pseudo-
critical point [1]. Because of the superior heat transfer performance,
supercritical fluids have been widely used in many industrial systems,
such as Circulating Fluidized Bed boilers (CFB boilers) [2–8] and Su-
percritical Cold Water Reactors (SCWRs). Pioro et al. [9] identified that
the thermal efficiency of SCWRs could be improved to circa 40% or
more against the current 33–35%. Moreover, since there is no phase
change under supercritical conditions, the steam generators, steam se-
parators and steam dryers could be eliminated which can decrease the
operational and capital costs. However, the DHT might happen under
some operating conditions, which would lead to the overheating of the
heated surfaces [10,11]. Shitsman et al. [12] carried out an experi-
mental study on the heat transfer characteristics of the supercritical
water in an 8-mm upward smooth tube. He found that, with

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: huixiong@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (H. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.01.077
Received 23 August 2018; Received in revised form 9 January 2019; Accepted 23 January 2019
Available online 24 January 2019
1359-4311/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Kong et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 66–76

Nomenclature β thermal expansion coefficient (1/K)

λ thermal conductivity (kW/(m K))
Ac thermal acceleration parameter, A c= Qb/ Reb1.625 Prb, μ dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
Qb = qw d b/ b ρ density (kg/m3)
Bu buoyancy parameter,Bu = Gr ¯ b /Reb2.7 ¯ average density (kg/m3), ¯ = T T
1 Tw
dT
Tb
C constant
w b
φ accuracy rate (–)
Cp specific heat at constant pressure (kJ/(kg K))
d inner tube diameter (mm)
Subscripts
g gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
G mass flux (kg/(m2 s))
b at bulk temperature
¯
Gr average Grashof number,Gr ¯ b = gd3 ( b ¯) b /µb2
cr at critical point
h enthalpy (kJ/kg)
max maximum value
N number of experimental conditions (–)
min minimum value
P pressure (MPa)
pc at pseudo-critical point
Pr Prandtl number (–), Pr = μCp/λ
ref at reference value
q heat flux (kW/m2)
w at wall temperature
qdht heat flux causing the onset of the DHT (kW/m2)
Re Reynolds number (–), Re = Gd/μ
Abbreviations
T Temperature (K)
DHT deteriorated heat transfer
Greek symbols
DNB departure from nucleate boiling
Non-DHT non deteriorated heat transfer
α heat transfer coefficient (kW/(m2 K))

P = 23.3 MPa, G = 430 kg/(m2 s), and when heat flux was 220.9 kW/
m2, the wall temperature rose monotonously with fluid enthalpy, while
a wall temperature peak, i.e., DHT occurred (the maximum amplitude
was 593 °C) when the heat flux was 386 kW/m2 under the same con-
ditions. The above result indicated that there exists a critical heat flux
(qdht) during the heat transfer process of supercritical water, which
when q exceeds, DHT will occur and may further lead to more higher
wall temperatures which would exceed the temperature extremes of the
heated surface and the tube will eventually rupture. This endorses the
importance to develop a criterion with extensive applicability and high
prediction accuracy for the design and safe operation of relevant
transfer components.
As for the critical heat flux under subcritical pressures, a lot of in-
sightful works have been done by many scholars [7,8,13–16] and a
thorough review was summarized by Cheng et al. [17]. Cheng [18]
carried out an experimental study about critical heat flux of Feron-12
under subcritical pressures in an 8-mm vertical tube. The results sug-
gested that the larger the mass flux the higher the critical heat flux, as
shown in Fig. 2. Under supercritical pressures, there is a boundary heat
flux (qdht), when which is exceeded, the deteriorated heat transfer
(DHT) occurs and heat transfer decreases. This boundary heat flux (qdht)
here is similar to the critical heat flux (CHF) under subcritical pressures.
Watts et al. [19] investigated the heat transfer characteristics of the
supercritical water in a 25.4-mm tube and suggested that a wall tem-
perature peak was observed when P = 25.0 MPa, q = 440 kW/m2,
G = 361 kg/(m2 s). The wall temperature peak disappeared when the G
was increased to 615 kg/(m2 s) while the P and q remained unchanged.
Gu et al. [20] conducted experimental studies on the heat transfer
characteristics of supercritical water in a 10-mm upward tube. The
results of Gu et al. [20] showed that the heat transfer coefficient profile
had a peak value near the pseudo critical point when P = 23 MPa,
q = 700 kW/m2, G = 1000 kg/(m2 s) which meant that the heat

Fig. 1. Variations of thermal physical properties versus enthalpy of water at 22.5 MPa.

67
X. Kong et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 66–76

Fig. 2. CHF versus exit steam quality for different mass fluxes (P = 2.3 MPa, Fig. 3. Density variations versus enthalpy of the supercritical water at different
d = 8 mm) [18]. pressures.

transfer was enhanced. However, there was a valley value of the heat
transfer coefficient profile which suggested that the DHT occurred
when G = 600 kg/(m2 s). The above results indicated that the mass flux
and heat flux causing the onset of the DHT (qdht) were closely related
under supercritical pressures and the larger the mass flux the higher
qdht.
Based on the relation between q and G, Vikhrev et al. [21], Styr-
ikovich et al. [22] and Yamagata et al. [23] (the detailed information of
those criteria was given in Table 1) proposed their own criteria for
calculating qdht under supercritical conditions and the three criteria
were given by Eqs. (1), (2) and (3), respectively.
Vikhrev et al. [21]: qdht = 0.4·G
Styrikovich et al. [22]: qdht = 0.58· G
Yamagata et al. [23]: qdht = 0.2· G1.2
From Eqs. (1), (2) and (3), we can see that the qdht has a direct
relationship with mass flux which is consistent with the experimental
results. However, the exponentials of these criteria are different which
lead to large differences among the three criteria’s prediction accuracies
(see Section 3). Thus, the relationship between G and qdht is worth
analyzing.
In addition to mass flux, pressure also has a major impact on qdht.
Lei et al. [24] conducted an experimental study on the heat transfer
characteristics of the supercritical water in an upward tube. The author
argued that the maximum value of the wall temperature decreases and
moves to higher enthalpy with the increase of pressure when
q = 300 kW/m2, G = 600 kg/(m2 s). The above phenomenon indicated
that the degree of the DHT is suppressed with the increase of pressure.
The degree of DHT is usually determined by the value of heat transfer
coefficient. The lower valley value of the heat transfer coefficient, the
severer DHT is. Zhang et al. [25] investigated the heat transfer char-
acteristics of the supercritical carbon dioxide in an upward tube. He
concluded that a temperature peak is observed when P = 7.5 MPa while
the temperature peak disappears at P = 10.5 MPa. The results of Zhang
et al. [25] also means that increasing pressure could depress the degree
of the DHT. Many scholars [19,26–28] have indicated that the buoy-
ancy introduced by the large density difference between the near wall
region and the core region is the main reason for the DHT under high q/
G conditions. When the heat flux is relative high, the density of the fluid
(1) in the near wall region is much smaller than that in the core region and
the fluid in the near wall region is accelerated remarkably. Therefore,
(2) the shear stress is reduced and the turbulent diffusivity is suppressed.
This will reduce the diffusivity of heat and DHT occurs. As can be seen
(3) from Fig. 3, the variation of supercritical water’s density becomes
milder with an increase in the pressure, and hence the degree of the
buoyancy decreases. Eventually, the degree of the DHT is suppressed
with the increase in pressure [25]. The above results indicate that
higher the pressure, the higher will be the qdht. Unfortunately, some of
existing criteria such as Vikhrev et al. [21], Styrikovich et al. [22] and
Yamagata et al. [23] criteria, did not consider the effects of the pressure
on qdht, which might be responsible for the low prediction accuracy.
With the development of the new criterion, the effect of the pressure
must be taken into consideration.
Besides the mass flux and pressure, tube diameter could also affect
qdht. Ackerman et al. [29] carried out an experimental study on the heat
transfer characteristics of the supercritical water in 9.4-mm, 11.94-mm,

Table 1
Existing criteria for the qdht of supercritical water found in open literatures.
Authors Criteria Application ranges
P (MPa)/G (kg/m2 s)/d (mm)/q (kW/m2)

Vikhrev et al. [21] qdht = 0.4·G 26.5/not stated/20.4/not stated

Styrikovich et al. [22] qdht = 0.58·G 24/not stated/22/not stated
Yamagata et al. [23] qdht = 0.2·G1.2 22.6–31/not stated/7.5–10/not stated
Gabaraev et al. [38] qdht = 0.79·G ·(P / Pcr )1.5 not stated
Cheng et al. [37] qdht = 1.354 × 10 3· G·(Cp, pc / pc )
22.5–31/500–3600/2.5–20/200–1740
Mokry et al. [36] qdht = 58.97 + 0.745·G 24/200–1500/10/160–900
Li et al. [35] qdht = d·(0.36·(G /d) 1.1)1.21 22.5–31/200–1600/7.5–38.1/90–1160
Gerrit et al. [34] qdht = 1.942 × 10 6·G 0.795 22.5–30/203–1500/7.5–26.0/166–1200
·(30 d)0.339·(Cp, pc / pc )
2.065

68
X. Kong et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 66–76

18.54-mm and 24.38-mm upward tubes. He inferred that tubes with
smaller diameters could have the higher qdht than that with larger
diameters under the same experimental conditions. The qdht increased
by 40% when the tube diameters were changed from 24.38 mm to
9.4 mm which showed that the larger the tube diameter the more dif-
ficult DHT would happen. The same conclusion can be drawn from
experimental studies on the heat transfer characteristics of the super-
critical carbon dioxide [30,31]. Shiralkar et al. [30] studied the heat
transfer characteristics of the supercritical carbon dioxide in different
tubes and suggested that the degree of the DHT is weaker in 3.175-mm
diameter than that in the 6.35-mm diameter tube. As we discussed
earlier, buoyancy is the main reason for the DHT under mixed con-
vection conditions and the tube diameters have a great impact on the
formation and development of the buoyancy. Watts et al. [19] proposed
a correlation to determine the degree of the buoyancy which is ex-
pressed by Eq. (4).
heat fluxes from 148 to 1810 kW/m2 and inner tube diameters from 3 to
38 mm. The data base has a wide range of experimental parameters
which can provide the foundation for the development of the new
criterion with broad applications.
2.2. Classification of the heat transfer data for supercritical water
In order to compare experimental data and the results predicted by
the existing criteria, it was necessary to divide all the experimental
cases in Table 2 into two groups: DHT conditions (dangerous condi-
tions) and Non-DHT conditions (safe conditions). The definition of DHT
used most frequently in the literatures was proposed by Koshizuka et al.
[58]:
R=
exp

0 (6)
¯ b /Reb2.7
Bu = Gr (4)
T In Eq. (6), αexp is the experimental heat transfer coefficient and α0 is
where Gr ¯) b /µb2 , ¯ = T T T w dT .
¯ b = gd3 ( b 1
w b b the corresponding heat transfer coefficient calculated by D-B correla-
From Eq. (4), we can see that the strength of the buoyancy is pro- tion which was expressed by Eq. (7) [59]. The DHT is believed to occur
portional to the cube of the tube diameter, indicating that the larger the when R < 0.3. Otherwise, the heat transfer model is Non-DHT. How-
tube diameter the stronger the strength of buoyancy, and the early ever, the method mentioned above might mistakenly identify the Non-
occurrence of the DHT under mixed convection conditions. Except for DHT conditions as DHT conditions. Fig. 4 shows the experimental re-
buoyancy, thermal acceleration could be the main reason for DHT sults of Xu et al. [48]. From Fig. 4(a), we can observe that inner wall
under forced convection conditions. This special phenomenon and its temperature increases monotonously with fluid enthalpy and heat
explanation can be found in [26,32,33] and no details is repeated here. transfer coefficient profile has a maximum value near the pseudo-cri-
Jackson et al. [26] ever proposed a correlation which is expressed by tical point. According to Pioio et al. [9], the experimental conditions
Eq. (5) as follows, shown in Fig. 4(a) were Non-DHT conditions while it were considered
A c= Qb/ Reb1.625 Prb, Qb = qw d b/ to be DHT conditions based on Koshizuka’s method [58] because the ‘R’
b (5)
was lower than 0.3 near the pseudo critical point (see Fig. 4(b)). Kline
It can be seen from Eq. (5), that the strength of the thermal accel- et al. [60] evaluated different definitions of the DHT and argued that
eration is proportional to the tube diameter, implying that the tube the most straightforward and reliable method to distinguish DHT is the
diameter has distinct effect on the DHT. observation of the emergence of peaks in the wall temperature profiles
To summarize, increasing the mass flux and pressure while de- and hence the same method was adopted in this paper. Fig. 5 shows a
creasing the tube diameter can increase the qdht. Many scholars typical Non-DHT condition and a DHT condition [21,48]. Based on the
[21–23,34–38] proposed different criteria, as shown in Table 1. Un- above method, all the experimental cases in Table 2 were divided into
fortunately, most of the existing criteria did not consider the effects of 65 DHT conditions and 109 Non-DHT conditions.
mass flux, pressure and tube diameter simultaneously which made the
prediction accuracies of the existing criteria relative low. In addition, Nu 0 = 0.023Reb0.8 Prb0.4 (7)
some criteria were developed based on their own experimental data
whose range of experimental parameters was limited and so does with
the existing criteria’s applicable range.
Table 2
In this paper, experimental data about heat transfer characteristics
Supercritical water heat transfer data in vertical upward tubes.
of supercritical water were widely collected to expand the applicable
range of the new criterion. Eight criteria for the prediction of qdht were Reference P (MPa) G (kg/(m2 s)) q (kW/m2) d (mm)
assessed and compared thoroughly. Finally, by taking the effects of
Shitsman et al. [12] 23.3–25.3 430–449 220.9–385 8
mass flux, pressure and tube diameter into consideration comprehen- Swenson et al. [39] 23, 31 2150 789 9.42
sively, a new criterion for qdht under supercritical pressures was pro- Herkenrath et al. [40] 22.5, 24,25 7,001,500 300–1410 10
posed and the applicability and prediction accuracy of the new criterion Vikrev et al. [21,41] 22.6–26.5 400–1400 300–1160 8, 20.4
was found to be higher than that of all the existing criteria. Styrikovich et al. [22] 24 700 348–872 22
Ackerman et al. [29] 22.75–31 406.9–1220 157.7–1261 9.42, 18.5
Ornatsky et al. [42] 25.5 1500 1810 3
2. Collection and classification of the heat transfer data for Yamagata et al. [23] 22.6–29.4 1120–1260 233–930 7.5, 10
supercritical water Lee et al. [43] 24.1 543, 1627 252–1101 38
Polyakov et al. [44] 24.5 595 570 8
Griem et al. [45] 25 500,1000 300 14
2.1. Collection of the heat transfer data for the supercritical water Koshizuka et al. [46] 31 540 473 9.4
Yoshida et al. [47] 24.5 376, 470 329, 473 10, 16
A deep understanding of the existing criteria could provide some Xu et al. [48] 23–30 800–1200 200–600 12
Kirillov et al. [49] 24–24.9 200–1500 227–884 10
reference for developing the new criterion. Hence, detailed compar-
Mokry et al. [36,50,51] 23.9–24.1 201–1503 148–884 10
isons between experimental data and the results predicted by the ex- Pan et al. [52] 22.5 400 300 17
isting criteria were necessary. In this paper a thorough review was Li et al. [53] 23–26 459.8–1497.5 192–1326.5 7.6
conducted and an experimental data base was established which con- Zhao et al. [54] 23 600, 1500 275, 800 7.6
sisted of 9705 experimental points collected from published papers. Huang et al. [55] 23–25 631–1233 420–939 6
Li et al. [56] 23–25 655–1263 466–1102 6
Table 2 shows the experimental data sources and the corresponding
Gu et al. [20] 23, 25 600, 1000 700, 1000 7.6, 10
range of experimental parameters. The experimental parameters cover Shen et al. [57] 24 420 270 19
pressures from 22.5 to 31 MPa, mass fluxes from 200 to 2150 kg/(m2 s),

69
X. Kong et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 66–76

3. Evaluation of the existing criteria

It is known that many DHT criteria were proposed earlier in history

[21–23,34–38] (Table 1). This section deals with the detailed assess-
ment and analysis of the existing criteria that were conducted using the
data base (Table 2) which could provide some reference for developing
the new criterion. In order to make a quantitative analysis of the pre-
diction accuracy of each DHT criterion, three parameters were in-
troduced, i.e. φNon-DHT (prediction accuracy for Non-DHT conditions),
φDHT (prediction accuracy for DHT conditions), φ(overall prediction
accuracy) and Eqs. (8), (9), (10) gave the definitions of these three
parameters:
NNon - DHT
=
Non - DHT
NNon - DHT (8)

Fig. 4. Experimental results of Xu et al. [48].
NDHT
=
DHT
NDHT (9)
'
N N + NDHT
= = Non - DHT
N NNon - DHT + NDHT (10)
where NNon-DHT, NDHT, and N are numbers of Non-DHT conditions, DHT
conditions and all experimental conditions in Table 2, respectively. The
superscript “ ′ ” means the experimental conditions were predicted
correctly by the criteria.
As we can see from Table 3, Vikhrev et al. [21] and Styrikovich et al.
[22] criteria could predict all the DHT conditions, i.e., φDHT = 100%
while φNon-DHT predicted by the two criteria were only 22.93% and
52.29%, respectively. The result shows that the two criteria tended to
be on the conservative side.
Fig. 6 illustrates the comparison of the experimental values with the
calculated values predicted by the Vikhrev et al. [21] and Styrikovich
et al. [22] criteria. The two planes in Fig. 6 were drawn according to
Vikhrev et al. [21] and Styrikovich et al. [22] criteria and the positive
direction of the Z axis were selected as the upward direction of the
planes. The red points and blue points represent the DHT conditions
and Non-DHT conditions, respectively. The diameter of the points re-
present the diameters of the experimental tubes. An ideal criterion
could distinguish all the Non-DHT and DHT conditions, i.e., all the DHT
conditions (red points) were at the top side of the plane while all the
Non-DHT conditions (blue points) located on the lower side of the
plane. As can be seen from Fig. 6, almost all the red points (DHT con-
ditions) were above the planes which meant that Vikhrev et al. [21] and
Styrikovich et al. [22] criteria could predict the DHT conditions cor-
rectly. However, it can also be seen that there were some blue points
(Non-DHT conditions) above the plane which indicated that Vikhrev
et al. [21] and Styrikovich et al. [22] criteria mistakenly identified the
Non-DHT conditions as DHT conditions. Hence, Vikhrev et al. [21] and

Table 3
Existing criteria evaluated against the data base (Table 2).
Criteria Non DHT Conditions (109 DHT Conditions (65 φ
Cases) Cases)

'
NNon φNon-DHT NDHT φDHT
- DHT

Vikhrev et al. 25 22.93% 65 100% 51.72%

[21]
Styrikovich et al. 57 52.29% 65 100% 70.11%
[22]
Yamagata et al. 100 91.74% 56 86.15% 89.65%
[23]
Cheng et al. [37] 103 94.49% 52 80% 89.08%
Fig. 5. Typical Non-DHT conditions and DHT conditions [21,48]. Mokry et al. [36] 80 73.39% 63 96.92% 82.18%
Gabaraev et al. 109 100% 32 49.23% 81.03%
[38]
Li et al. [35] 94 86.23% 61 93.84% 89.08%
Gerrit et al. [34] 78 71.55% 51 78.46% 74.14%

70
X. Kong et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 66–76

the variation of the pressure when the heat flux was around the qdht.
However, the effect of pressure was not involved in the Li et al. [35]
criterion which would have been responsible for the low φNon-DHT.
Besides, what we need to understand is that the Vikhrev et al. [21],
Styrikovich et al. [22], Yamagata et al. [23] and Mokry et al. [50]
criteria were based on their own experimental data. Due to the lim-
itation of the range of the experimental parameters, the above four
criteria could not get high prediction accuracy over a wide range of
operating conditions.
According to the analysis above, the reasons for the low prediction
accuracy of the existing criteria can be summarized as:

(1) The existing criteria fail to consider the effect of mass flux, pressure
and tube diameter on qdht simultaneously. Only taking one or two
parameters into consideration is not sufficient for a precise pre-
diction.
(2) The criteria may be developed based on limited data sets.
(3) Different criteria might have been based on different definitions of
the DHT.

4. Development of the new criterion

Fig. 6. Comparison of the experimental values with those predicted by the As discussed in the previous section, the mass flux, pressure and
Vikhrev et al. [21] and Styrikovich et al. [22] criteria. tube diameter have a great impact on qdht. However, only a few criteria
take the effect of mass flux, pressure and tube diameter on qdht into
consideration simultaneously. In addition, the reason why some criteria
Styrikovich et al. [22] criteria were inefficient in predicting the Non-
(such as the Mokry et al. [50] criterion) could not get high prediction
DHT conditions.
accuracy over a wide range of operating conditions is that the range of
The criterion proposed by Mokry et al. [50] was similar to Vikhrev
experimental parameters is limited in the development process of those
et al. [21] and Styrikovich et al. [22] in terms of the prediction accu-
criteria. Taking into account all those problems, a new criterion was
racy (φDHT = 96.92%, φNon-DHT = 73.39%). Fig. 7 showed the com-
developed based on the data base (Table 2) and all the effects of mass
parison of the experimental values with the calculated values predicted
flux, pressure and tube diameter were taken into consideration.
by the Mokry et al. [50] criterion. From Fig. 7, we can see that a
As it can be observed from Table 1, the relationship between qdht
number of blue points (Non-DHT conditions) were above the plane
and G was described by the power function (Eq. (11)). Eq. (12) could be
which meant that the criterion proposed by Mokry et al. [50] mis-
obtained by rearranging Eq. (11).
takenly identified the Non-DHT conditions as DHT conditions.
As observed earlier, the pressure and tube diameter have a great qdht = C1· GC2 (11)
impact on qdht. However, when we analyzed the forms of Vikhrev et al.
[21], Styrikovich et al. [22] and Mokry et al. [50] criteria, we realized qdht
1 = Constant
that only the effect of mass flux is involved in the above three criteria, C1· GC2 (12)
which might be the reason for the low prediction accuracies of the three From Eq. (12), we can see that the left side of Eq. (12) was a
criteria.
Unlike Vikhrev et al. [21], Styrikovich et al. [22] and Mokry et al.
[50] criteria, the criterion proposed by Gabaraev et al. [23] could
predict all the Non-DHT conditions correctly while the φDHT was only
49.23% (as shown in Table 3 and Fig. 8). In practice, the prediction
results of the Gabaraev et al. [23] criterion tended to be dangerous
because the criterion wrongly identified the DHT conditions (dangerous
conditions) as safe conditions (Non-DHT conditions).
The overall prediction accuracy of Cheng et al. [37] criterion was
relatively high amongst all the existing criteria, but still incapable of
predicting the DHT conditions correctly (φDHT was 80%). Besides, as it
can be seen from Table 1, the corrected item Cp,pc/βpc was involved in
Cheng et al. [37] criterion but is inconvenient for engineering practices
as Cp,pc and βpc should be calculated first according to the operating
pressures. And same is the case with the Gerrit et al. [34] criterion.
Mainly, the performance of the Yamagata et al. [23] and Li et al.
[35] criteria were found to be better than the other criteria. However,
Yamagata et al. [23] criterion was lacking in predicting DHT conditions
(φDHT = 86.15%) and Li et al. [35] criterion was insufficient in pre-
dicting Non-DHT conditions (φNon-DHT = 86.23%). As can be seen from
the form of Yamagata et al. [23] criterion, only the effect of mass flux
on qdht was taken into consideration, while the effect of pressure and
tube diameter were not involved in the criterion which was one of the
main reasons for the low φDHT. As pointed out by Li et al. [35], the heat Fig. 7. Comparison of the experimental values with those predicted by the
transfer characteristic of the supercritical water was very sensitive to Mokry et al. [36] criterion.

71
X. Kong et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 66–76

the common tube diameter in supercritical boilers’ water walls was

adopted as the dref. According to Liao [61], the common diameters of
water wall tubes were concentrated nearby 20 mm and hence 20 mm
was selected as the reference tube diameter. Similarly, Pref was the
reference pressure which was the critical pressure of water i.e.,
Pref = 22.064 MPa ≈ 22.1 MPa. Eq. (13) changes to:

qdht C4 C5
d P
- 1 = C3
C1· GC2 20 22.1 (14)

After little rearrangement, the final form of the criterion was ob-
tained:
C4 C5
d P
qdht = C1· GC 2 1 + C3
20 22.1 (15)

In order to obtain constants C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 in Eq. (15), multi-
variate nonlinear regression method was employed in this paper and
the premise to use multivariate nonlinear regression method are the
multiple sets of specific data – (qdht, P, G, D). Gerrit et al. [34] stated
that the qdht must be obtained by variation of the heat flux in suffi-
ciently small steps until DHT was observed. However, the data sa-
tisfying the above requirements were extremely rare in the open lit-
erature. In the development process of some criteria, such as the Gerrit
et al. [34] criterion, the qdht used for multivariate nonlinear regression
Fig. 8. Comparison of the experimental values with the calculated values pre-
was higher than the real qdht and this is one of the main reasons why the
dicted by the Gabaraev et al. [38] criterion.
Gerrit et al. [34] criterion could not get high prediction accuracy for
DHT conditions. For example, Fig. 9 gives the experimental results of
Shitsman et al. [12]. From Fig. 9, we can know that the variation of the
wall temperature versus enthalpy was monotonous when the heat flux
was 220.9 kW/m2, which indicated that those conditions were Non-
DHT conditions. When heat flux was increased to 300 kW/m2, an ob-
vious wall temperature peak (510 °C) was observed which suggested
that severe DHT occurred. The accurate qdht should between 220.9 kW/
m2 and 300 kW/m2 and the accurate values of qdht were crucial to the
accuracy of the criterion. Fig. 10 shows the schematic representation of
qdht. In order to explain the significance of searching and determining
qdht under certain flowing conditions for the accuracy of the developed
criterion, a solid curve and a dashed curve are assumed as reference
curves, as shown in Fig. 10. It can be seen that the criterion (the dot
dash line in Fig. 10) could predict all the Non-DHT conditions while the
DHT conditions could not be distinguished i.e., φNon-DHT > φDHT if the
selected qdht was relative high. As a consequence, the criterion based on
the higher qdht would wrongly identify the DHT conditions (dangerous
conditions) as Non-DHT conditions (safe conditions) which is un-
Fig. 9. Experimental results of Shitsman et al. [12]. favorable for the engineering applications. On the contrary, had the
selected qdht been relative low, the criterion (the solid line in Fig. 10)
could have predicted all the DHT conditions while the Non-DHT con-
combination of qdht and G while the right side was a constant. As ditions could not have been distinguished, i.e., φNon-DHT < φDHT.
mentioned above, the pressure and the tube diameter have a great In order to acquire the precise value of qdht, the dichotomy algo-
( ) ( )
C4 C5
impact on qdht. Hence, two correction terms
d
dref
and
P
Pref
were rithm was adopted by this paper. Initially, 16 groups of experimental
introduced into the right side of Eq. (12) to reflect the effect of the conditions (as shown in Table 4) were selected from the data base
pressure and the tube diameter on qdht, respectively. (Table 2) which would be used for multivariate nonlinear regression
and each group was segregated into two experimental cases whose
qdht d
C4
P
C5 pressure, mass flux and tube diameter were the same except for heat
1 = C3 fluxes. qdown was the maximum heat flux when the heat transfer model
C1· GC2 dref Pref (13)
was Non-DHT and qup was the minimum heat flux when DHT occurred.
In Eq. (13), dref is the reference tube diameter. The correction term Both qdown and qup values were observed values in experimental studies.
(dref d)C4 was adopted in the Gerrit et al. [34] criterion to reflect the The qdht should between the qdown and qup, i.e., qdown ≤ qdht ≤ qup. The
effect of tube diameter on qdht and the qdht might have been negative process of multivariate nonlinear regression could not be carried out
when d ≥ dref. To avoid this from happening, the correction term unless the precise value of qdht was known. Hence, an initial value of
heat flux causing the onset of DHT— q 0dht was assumed as q 0dht =
( )
C4
d
dref
was introduced to the new criterion. In the Gerrit et al. [34] (qdown + qup)/2. Then the constants C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 could be obtained
criterion, the difference between the minimum and maximum values of via multivariate nonlinear regression method and so does the heat flux
the tube diameter in his data base was selected as dref (dref = dmax − causing the onset of DHT q1dht,cal (superscript “1” means the results of the
dmin). However, the form of criteria would change with the range of the first iteration, subscript “cal” means the calculated values). The new
data base, more specifically, dmax and dmin. In order to be more specific, criterion obtained from the first iteration was evaluated through the

72
X. Kong et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 66–76

tube diameters from 3 to 38 mm at pressures from 22.5 to 31 MPa, mass

fluxes from 200 to 2150 kg/(m2 s) and heat fluxes from 148 to
1810 kW/m2.

5. Assessment of the new criterion

Fig. 13 gives the comparison of the experimental values with the

calculated values predicted by the new criterion. For convenience, two
different views were given in Fig. 13. From Fig. 13(a) we can observe
that only a few blue points were on the upper side of the plane in-
dicating that the new criterion could distinguish almost all the Non-
DHT conditions. In Fig. 13(b), we observe that only a few red points
were under the plane which suggested that the new criterion could get a
good accuracy in predicting DHT conditions.
Table 5 further gives the quantitative comparison of prediction ac-
curacy between the new criterion and the existing ones. As can be seen
from Table 5, φNon-DHT and φDHT of the new criterion were both higher
than 90% indicating that the performance of the new criterion in pre-
Fig. 10. The schematic of qdht of the supercritical water. dicting both Non-DHT and DHT conditions was better than that of ex-
isting criteria. And the overall prediction accuracy was up to 94.25%
Supercritical water has been widely used in many advanced in-
Table 4
dustrial systems such as supercritical pressure Circulating Fluidized Bed
Experimental data used for multivariate nonlinear regression.
boilers (CFBs), supercritical water-cooled nuclear reactors (SCWRs) and
Sources P (MPa) G (kg/m2 s) d (mm) q (kW/m2) supercritical solar-thermal power plants, and so forth. In these ad-
qdown qup
vanced systems, deteriorated heat transfer (DHT) is undoubtedly one of
the major concerns, which may lead to wall temperature peaks and
Shitsman et al. [12] 23.3 430 8 220.9 300 even rupture of the heating pipe. With the help of the new criterion of
Herkenrath et al. [40] 22.5 700 10 300 500 DHT, the DHT could be hopefully predicted in advance in the design
Herkenrath et al. [40] 22.5 1000 20 600 800
stage of the system, and any related system failure may be avoided.
Vikhrev et al. [41] 22.6 400 8 300 581.5
Vikhrev et al. [41] 22.6 700 8 465 581.5 Generally, the new criterion for DHT of supercritical water is of great
Vikhrev et al. [21] 26.5 493 20.4 362 454 importance for the design and safe operation of relevant industrial
Vikhrev et al. [21] 26.5 1400 20.4 930 1160 systems.
Styrikovich et al. [22] 24 700 22 348 640
J.Ackerman et al. [29] 22.75 1220 9.42 945.7 1261
J.Ackerman et al. [29] 24.8 406.9 18.5 283.9 315.5
6. Summary
Mokry et al. [36,50] 23.9 1002 10 681 826
Li et al. [53] 23 459.8 7.6 192 336.2 1. The experimental heat transfer data of the supercritical water in
Li et al. [53] 25 1185 7.6 766.7 994.7 vertically-upward tubes were widely collected from the published
Li et al. [53] 26 1192.1 7.6 772.5 991.1
literatures. The experimental data base consisted of 9705 data
Gu et al. [20] 23 1000 10 700 1000
Gu et al. [20] 25 1000 10 700 1000 points and the numbers of DHT and Non-DHT conditions were 109
and 64 respectively. The data covered pressures from 22.5 to
31 MPa, mass fluxes from 200 to 2150 kg/(m2 s), heat fluxes from
heat transfer data base (Table 2). φNon-DHT and φDHT were calculated 148 to 1810 kW/m2, and inner tube diameters from 3 to 38 mm.
separately. If φDHT was far greater than φNon-DHT which means q 0dht was 2. A thorough assessment of the existing criteria for qdht of super-
relative low, the real qdht should have been located in the interval B (as critical water was conducted. The research connoted that none of
shown in Fig. 11). In the second iteration the q1dht = (q 0dht + qup)/2. On the existing criteria could distinguish the Non-DHT and DHT pre-
the contrary, the real qdht should be located in the interval A (as shown cisely. Compared to other criteria, Yamagata’s criterion had rela-
in Fig. 11) if the φNon-DHT was far greater than φDHT. In the second tively higher prediction accuracies.
iteration the q1dht = (qdown + q 0dht )/2. qdht was obtained by continuous 3. Methodically and comprehensively considering the effects of mass
iterations and the iteration was stopped when φNon-DHT and φNon-DHT no flux, tube diameter, and the pressure, a new criterion for the onset of
longer changed. Fig. 12 gives the flow chart of the development of the heat transfer deterioration under the supercritical pressure in ver-
new criterion. tically upward smooth tubes was developed. The prediction ac-
After several iterations, the final criterion was given in Eq.(16): curacies of the new criterion for the DHT and Non-DHT conditions
were both higher than 90% and the overall prediction accuracy was
1.96 7.16
d P 94.25% which was higher than that of the existing criteria. The new
qdht = 0.457· G1.09 1 0.035
20 22.1 (16) criterion is capable of being used for the design and safe operation of
ultra-supercritical boilers.
The criteria is valid for water flowing upward in tubes with inner

Fig. 11. The schematic of the dichotomy algorithm

for calculating the qdht.

73
X. Kong et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 66–76

Fig. 12. The flow chart of developing the new criterion.

Fig. 13. Comparison of the experimental values with those predicted by the new criterion.

74
X. Kong et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 66–76

Table 5 [12] M.E. Shitsman, Impairment of the heat transmission at supercritical pressures (Heat
Comparison between the existing criteria and new criterion. transfer process examined during forced motion of water at supercritical pressures),
1963.
Criteria Non DHT Conditions (109 DHT Conditions (65 φ [13] W. Qu, I. Mudawar, Measurement and correlation of critical heat flux in two-phase
Cases) Cases) micro-channel heat sinks, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 47 (2004) 2045–2059.
[14] S.H. Chang, W.P. Baek, Understanding, predicting, and enhancing critical heat flux,
φNon-DHT φDHT 2002.
N'Non-DHT N'DHT
[15] D.D. Hall, I. Mudawar, Critical heat flux (CHF) for water flow in tubes—I.
Compilation and assessment of world CHF data, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 43 (2000)
Vikhrev et al. [21] 25 22.93% 65 (100%) 51.72%
2573–2604.
Styrikovich et al. 57 52.29% 65 (100%) 70.11% [16] M.M. Shah, Improved general correlation for critical heat flux during upflow in
[22] uniformly heated vertical tubes, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 8 (1987) 326–335.
Yamagata et al. 100 91.74% 56 (86.15%) 89.65% [17] X. Cheng, U. Müller, Review on critical heat flux in water cooled reactors,
[23] Wissenschaftliche Berichte Fzka 6825 (2003) 1–40.
Cheng et al. [37] 103 94.49% 52 (80%) 89.08% [18] X. Cheng, F.J. Erbacher, U. Müller, F.G. Pang, Critical heat flux in uniformly heated
Mokry et al. [36] 80 73.39% 63 (96.92%) 82.18% vertical tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 40 (1997) 2929–2939.
Gabaraev et al. 109 100% 32 (49.23%) 81.03% [19] M. John Watts, Heat Transfer to Supercritical Pressure Water: Mixed Convection
[38] with Upflow or Downflow in a Vertical Tube, University of Manchester, 1980.
Li et al. [35] 94 86.23% 61 (93.84%) 89.08% [20] H.Y. Gu, M. Zhao, X. Cheng, Experimental studies on heat transfer to supercritical
Gerrit et al. [34] 78 71.55% 51 (78.46%) 74.14% water in circular tubes at high heat fluxes, Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 65 (2015) 22–32.
[21] Y.V. Vikhrev, Y.D. Barulin, A. Kon’Kov, A study of heat transfer in vertical tubes at
New Criterion 104 95.41% 60 (92.31%) 94.25%
supercritical pressures, Therm. Eng 14 (1967) 116–119.
[22] M. Styrikovich, T.K. Margulova, Z. Miropol’Skii, Problems in the development of
designs of supercritical boilers, Teploenergetika 14 (1967) 4–7.
4. Further experimental investigations on the heat transfer character- [23] K. Yamagata, K. Nishikawa, S. Hasegawa, T. Fujii, S. Yoshida, Forced convective
istics of supercritical water, especially on the qdht are needed. heat transfer to supercritical water flowing in tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 15
(1972) 2575–2593.
Besides, numerical simulations are worth conducting because it [24] X. Lei, H. Li, W. Zhang, N.T. Dinh, Y. Guo, S. Yu, Experimental study on the dif-
could provide detailed flow information which is useful for not only ference of heat transfer characteristics between vertical and horizontal flows of
the understanding of deteriorated heat transfer phenomena but also supercritical pressure water, Appl. Therm. Eng. 113 (2017) 609–620.
[25] Q. Zhang, H. Li, X. Kong, J. Zhang, X. Lei, W. Zhang, Experimental study on heat
the development of criteria for verifying the deteriorated heat transfer to supercritical CO2 flowing in vertical upward tube at medium mass flux,
transfer. Moreover, studies on the heat transfer characteristics of in: ASME 2017 Nuclear Forum Collocated with the ASME 2017 Power Conference
supercritical carbon dioxide is also of great importance for under- Joint with Icope-17, the ASME 2017 International Conference on Energy
Sustainability, and the ASME 2017 International Conference on Fuel Cell Science,
standing of the heat transfer characteristics of supercritical water, Engineering and Technology, 2017, pp. V009T003A006.
and has become a hot research topic recently. [26] J.D. Jackson, Fluid flow and convective heat transfer to fluids at supercritical
pressure, Nucl. Eng. Des. 264 (2013) 24–40.
[27] C. Xu, E. Laurien, Direct Numerical Simulation of Heated Turbulent Pipe Flow at
7. Conflict of interest statement Supercritical Pressure, in: The International Symposium on Supercritical Water-
Cooled Reactors Isscwr, 2015.
The authors declared that there is on conflict of interest. [28] X. Lei, H. Li, Y. Zhang, W. Zhang, Effect of buoyancy on the mechanism of heat
transfer deterioration of supercritical water in horizontal tubes, J. Heat Transf. 135
(2013) 071703.
Acknowledgment [29] J.W. Ackerman, Pseudoboiling heat transfer to supercritical pressure water in
smooth and ribbed tubes, J. Heat Transf. 92 (1970) 69.
The authors acknowledge the support of the National Basic Research [30] B. Shiralkar, P. Griffith, The effect of swirl, inlet conditions, flow direction, and tube
diameter on the heat transfer to fluids at supercritical pressure, J. Heat Transf. 92
Program of China (973 Program, Grant No. 2015CB251502), the (1970) 465–471.
National Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China (Grant No. [31] N. Kline, An Experimental Study of Heat Transfer Deterioration at Supercritical
51506170), and the National Science Foundation for Post-doctoral Pressures, Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa, 2017.
[32] X. Cheng, B. Kuang, Y.H. Yang, Numerical analysis of heat transfer in supercritical
Scientists of China (Grant No. 2015M570840). water cooled flow channels, Nucl. Eng. Des. 237 (2007) 240–252.
[33] A. Urbano, F. Nasuti, Conditions for the occurrence of heat transfer deterioration in
References light hydrocarbons flows, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 65 (2013) 599–609.
[34] G.A. Schatte, A. Kohlhepp, C. Wieland, H. Spliethoff, Development of a new em-
pirical correlation for the prediction of the onset of the deterioration of heat transfer
[1] M. Mohseni, M. Bazargan, The effect of the low Reynolds number k-e turbulence to supercritical water in vertical tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 102 (2016)
models on simulation of the enhanced and deteriorated convective heat transfer to 133–141.
the supercritical fluid flows, Heat Mass Transf. 47 (2011) 609–619. [35] Z. Li, D. Zhang, Y. Wu, J. Lu, Q. Liu, A new criterion for predicting deterioration of
[2] A. Błaszczuk, W. Nowak, S. Jagodzik, The impact of bed particle size in heat transfer heat transfer to supercritical water in smooth tubes, Zhongguo Dianji Gongcheng
to membrane walls of supercritical CFB boiler, Arch. Thermodynam. 35 (2014) Xuebao/Proc. Chin. Soc. Electr. Eng. 34 (2014) 6304–6310 (in Chinese).
207–223. [36] S. Mokry, I. Pioro, A. Farah, K. King, S. Gupta, W. Peiman, P. Kirillov, Development
[3] A. Błaszczuk, Effect of flue gas recirculation on heat transfer in a supercritical of supercritical water heat-transfer correlation for vertical bare tubes, Nucl. Eng.
circulating fluidized bed combustor, Arch. Thermodynam. 36 (2015) 61–83. Des. 241 (2011) 1126–1136.
[4] J. Pan, G. Wu, D. Yang, Thermal-hydraulic calculation and analysis on water wall [37] X. Cheng, Y.H. Yang, S.F. Huang, A simplified method for heat transfer prediction of
system of 600 MW supercritical CFB boiler, Appl. Therm. Eng. 82 (2015) 225–236. supercritical fluids in circular tubes, Ann. Nucl. Energy 36 (2009) 1120–1128.
[5] A. Blaszczuk, W. Nowak, J. Krzywanski, Effect of bed particle size on heat transfer [38] B. Gabaraev, Y.N. Kuznetsov, I. Pioro, R. Duffey, Experimental study on heat
between fluidized bed of group b particles and vertical rifled tubes, Powder transfer to supercritical water flowing in 6-m long vertical tubes, International
Technol. 316 (2017) 111–122. Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE-15), (2007).
[6] Y. Chen, X. Lu, W. Zhang, Q. Wang, S. Chen, X. Fan, J. Li, An experimental study on [39] H.S. Swenson, J.R. Carver, C.d. Kakarala, Heat transfer to supercritical water in
the hydrodynamic performance of the water-wall system of a 600 MW supercritical smooth-bore tubes, J. Heat Transf. 87 (1965) 477–483.
CFB boiler, Appl. Therm. Eng. 141 (2018) 280–287. [40] H. Herkenrath, P. Mörk-Mörkenstein, U. Jung, F. Weckermann, Wärmeübergang an
[7] D. Yang, J. Pan, C.Q. Zhou, X. Zhu, Q. Bi, T. Chen, Experimental investigation on Wasser bei Erzwungener Strömung im Druckbereich von 140 bis 250 bar,
heat transfer and frictional characteristics of vertical upward rifled tube in super- EURATOM, Berlin (1967). EUR, 3658 (1967).
critical CFB boiler, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 35 (2011) 291–300. [41] Y.V. Vikrev, V. Lokshin, An experimental study of temperature conditions in hor-
[8] W. Wang, D. Yang, H. Jiang, M. Qu, Y. Zhao, Heat transfer and frictional resistance izontal steam-generating tubes at supercritical pressures, Teploenergetika 11
characteristics of the water wall tube of an ultra-supercritical CFB boiler, J. (1964) 12–16.
Supercrit. Fluids 128 (2017) 279–290. [42] A.P. Ornatsky, L.P. Glushchenko, E.T. Siomin, et al., The research of temperature
[9] I.L. Pioro, R.B. Duffey, Experimental heat transfer in supercritical water flowing conditions of small diameter parallel tubes cooled by water under supercritical
inside channels (survey), Nucl. Eng. Des. 235 (2005) 2407–2430. pressures, 1970.
[10] J.Y. Yoo, The turbulent flows of supercritical fluids with heat transfer, Annu. Rev. [43] R. Lee, K. Haller, Supercritical water heat transfer developments and applications,
Fluid Mech. 45 (2013) 495–525. in: Proceedings of the 5th International Heat Transfer Conference, Tokyo, Japan,
[11] D. Huang, Z. Wu, B. Sunden, W. Li, A brief review on convection heat transfer of September, 1974, pp. 3–7.
fluids at supercritical pressures in tubes and the recent progress, Appl. Energy 162 [44] A.F. Polyakov, Mechanism and limits on the formation of conditions for impaired
(2016) 494–505. heat transfer at a supercritical coolant pressure, 13 (1975) 1119–1126.

75
X. Kong et al.
[45] H. Griem, A new procedure for the prediction of forced convection heat transfer at
near- and supercritical pressure, Heat Mass Transf. 31 (1996) 301–305.
[46] S. Koshizuka, Y. Oka, Computational analysis of deterioration phenomena and
thermal-hydraulic design of SCR, Proceedings of the First International Symposium
on Supercritical Water-cooled Reactors, Design and Technology, (2000).
[47] S. Yoshida, H. Mori, Heat transfer to supercritical pressure fluids flowing in tubes,
Annual report of the Faculty of Engineering, Kyushu University, 2002 (2003)
68–69.
[48] F. Xu, Study of Water Flow and Heat Transfer Characteristics through Pipes under
Supercritical Pressure, Xi'an Jiaotong University, 2004 (in Chinese).
[49] P. Kirillov, R. Pomet'ko, A. Smirnov, V. Grabezhnaia, I. Pioro, R. Duffey, H.
Khartabil, Experimental study on heat transfer to supercritical water flowing in 1-
and 4-m-long vertical tubes, 2005.
[50] S. Mokry, I. Pioro, P. Kirillov, Y. Gospodinov, Supercritical-water heat transfer in a
vertical bare tube, Nucl. Eng. Des. 240 (2010) 568–576.
[51] S. Mokry, A. Lukomski, I. Pioro, K. Gabriel, G. Naterer, Thermalhydraulic analysis
and heat transfer correlation for an intermediate heat exchanger linking a
SuperCritical Water-cooled Reactor and a Copper-Chlorine cycle for hydrogen co-
generation, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37 (2012) 16542–16556.
[52] J. Pan, D. Yang, Z. Dong, T. Zhu, Q. Bi, Experimental investigation on heat transfer
characteristics of low mass flux rifled tube with upward flow, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 54 (2011) 2952–2961.
[53] H. Li, Y. Yang, M.Z. H. Gu, D. LU, Expeerimental Study on Heat Transfer
Deterioration of Supercritical Water in a Singal Upward Tube, in: Progress on China
76
Applied Thermal Engineering 151 (2019) 66–76
Nuclear Science & Technology, 2011 (in Chinese).
[54] M. Zhao, H. Li, G. Zhang, H. Gu, L. Wang, X. Cheng, Experimental study on heat
transfer to supercritical water flowing in circular tubes, Atomic Energy Sci. Technol.
46 (2012) 250–254 (in Chinese).
[55] Z. Huang, Y. Li, X. Zeng, X. Yan, Z. Xiao, Experimental and numerical simulation of
supercritical water heat transfer in vertical upward circular tube, Atomic Energy
Sci. Technol. 46 (2012) 799–803 (in Chinese).
[56] Y. Li, X. Zeng, Z. Huang, X. Yan, Y. Huang, Z. Xiao, Experimental study on heat
transfer of supercritical water in simple channels, Nucl. Power Eng. 34 (2013)
101–107 (in Chinese).
[57] Z. Shen, D. Yang, H. Xie, X. Nie, W. Liu, S. Wang, Flow and heat transfer char-
acteristics of high-pressure water flowing in a vertical upward smooth tube at low
mass flux conditions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 102 (2016) 391–401.
[58] S. Koshizuka, N. Takano, Y. Oka, Numerical analysis of deterioration phenomena in
heat transfer to supercritical water, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 38 (1995) 3077–3084.
[59] F.W. Dittus, L.M.K. Boelter, Heat transfer in automobile radiator of the tubular type,
Publ.eng, 2 (1930) 3–22.
[60] N. Kline, F. Feuerstein, S. Tavoularis, Onset of heat transfer deterioration in vertical
pipe flows of CO2 at supercritical pressures, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 118 (2018)
1056–1068.
[61] C. Liao, Investigation on Heat Transfer Correlations and the Criterion for the Onset
of Heat Transfer Deterioration of Supercritical Pressure Water in Vertical Upward
Pipes, in, Vol. Master, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 2014 (in Chinese).