International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Engineering Volume 3 Issue 4, December 2013

doi: 10.14355/ijnese.2013.0304.05

www.ijnese.org

Experimental and Analytical Study of a

Simulated Collapsed PHWR Reactor Channel
Under Accident Condition
Deb Mukhopadhyay1, P. K. Vijayan
Reactor Design and Development Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400085, India
dmukho@barc.gov.in

*1

Abstract
Heat transfer study has been carried out to characterize the
effect of submergence on the heatup behavior of a collapsed
PHWR reactor channel. The situation is simulated with a
heat generating body enclosed in a both side open ended
tube, undergoing a pool boiling condition. Under this study,
the heat generating cylindrical body is rested inside the tube
thus making the flow path no-uniform over the heat
generating body. Experimentations are carried out at 6 and 8
kW power levels with variation of submergence level of the
heater body, which ranges from 100%-12%. It is observed
that for fully submerged level (100%) to a partially
submerged level of 24%, a counter current stratified flow of
steam and water is set up in the annulus fow path. Steam
leaves from the upper section of the annulus and the pool
water enter from the bottom section, thus a continuous
steam generation and circulation is maintained. The
convective heat removal by the steam is found to be
sufficiently high to avoid dryout in the largely steam voided
upper section of the heated body. However, at very low
submergence level (12%) steam generation is found to be
insufficeint, thus leading to a temperature excursion. The
estimated generated steam mass flow rate has been found to
vary between 3.55 0.26 gm/s depending on the
submergence level and power. The convective heat transfer
coefficients for the exposed and submerged section of the
heater body are estimated and found to vary between 0.7
kW/m2 K to 15.5 kW/m2 K. Heat transfer coefficients
correlations are proposed for exposed and submerged heater
body.
Keywords
Severe Accident; Collapsed Channel; Heat Generating Body; Pool
Boiling; Enclosure Effect; Submergence Level; Dryout

Introduction
The reactor core of Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor
[Bajaj et al.] consists of several reactor channels which
houses nuclear fuel bundle. Under a postulated late
phase severe accident scenario, the reactor channels
are likely to get heated up and disassembled from its
own position and collapsed into a pool of water, thus

forming a debris bed, as described [Lee et al.]. The

pool water enters into all the submerged disassembled
channels from both ends. A reactor channel typically
consists of short nuclear fuel bundles with internal
heat generation and is housed in Pressure Tube (PT).
The pool boiling behavaiour of these collapsed
channels need to be understood well to develop
physical models which eventually predicts the coarse
debris bed heatup behaviour. The developed model
will be useful for predicting severe accident
progression and for developing planning Severe
Accident Management Guidelines (SAMG).
A pool boiling experimentation has been carried out
which nearly simulates a single collapsed reactor
channel. Under this study, a configuration as
illustrated in Figure 1 is considered where a
submerged cylindrical body (FR) rests on an open
ended tube (PT). This configuration simulates an open
ended collapsed reactor channel with nuclear fuel
bundles enclosed in the PT. Based on the heatup
behavaiour observations from fully submerged to
nearly exposed condition of the heat generating body,
a heat transfer characterization has been carried out.

PT
Non-uniform
annulus flow
path

FR

FIG. 1 SCHEMATIC OF SS HEATER ROD (FR) IN TUBE

ENCLOSURE (PT)

As the scenario demands for experimentation at

different power levels, the study has been carried out
at two heat flux levels. The heat flux levels of 31.0
kW/m2 (6 kW) and 41.3 kW/m2 (8 kW) simulates
different decay powers of 2%-3% for the fuel bundle.
As the level varies from fully submerged to fully
exposed condition, experimentation has been done at

109

www.ijnese.org

International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Engineering Volume 3 Issue 4, December 2013

different levels. This range is represented by 100%12%. Experimentaion at different water levels is
shown in Figure 2. The power levels and different
water levels simulate the decay power levels of the FR
and reduction in pool water level from boil-off
situation.

at both the sides. The both side open ended tube (PT)
is of 0.082 mm internal diameter with 5 mm thickness
and made of Zircaloy material. The dimensions of the
heater body and the enclosure are selected so that the
actual situation is represented and the hydraulic
diameter is conserved. In the test section, two
components are placed in such a manner that their
axial centers are collinear with that of cylindrical tank
and their contacts lie at the bottom as shown in Figure
1. The surface of the tank is insulated with thermal
wool to make the system adiabatic as much as possible.
1

FIG. 2 SCHEMATIC SHOWING EXPERIMENTATION AT

VARIOUS WATER LEVELS

The exothermic heat from Zr-steam reaction is not

simulated in the experiment as the submerged bundle
remains at lower temperature than the oxidation
temperature of 800C.
For fully submerged condition, the operating heat flux
levels of the heat generating body are in saturated
nucleate boiling region and far away from Critical
Heat Flux (CHF) value of 1.0 MW/m2 for an open
atmospheric pool boiling [Collier], hence no temperature
escalation is expected. However introduction of the
tube leads to channelizing the generated steam flow
through the annulus path and escaping to the pool.
Thus pool boiling characteristic no longer remains and
a pseudo flow boiling situation with large voids
appearing where boiling crisis need to be examined.
However, for a large enclosure, observations made [E.
Hahne], shows an enhancement of heat transfer
coefficient in a pool boiling situation. In fact, the
enclosure has helped to increase the circulation flow.
With receding water level, the highly steam voided
condition of the upper half of the heated body; and it
is expected to have less steam cooling causing the
upper section heatup. The characterization study
intends to have an assessment of cooling and heatup
as a function of submergence and estimating heat
transfer coefficients for exposed and submerged
sections of the heater.
Experimental Set-up and Procedure
The schematic diagram of experimental set-up is
shown in Figure 3. The test section, simulating the
segmented reactor channel, is housed in a large
cylindrical tank (1 m length and 0.45 m diameter). The
tank is open to atmosphere and kept in a horizontal
position. The test section of 0.97 m length consists of
an assembly of a SS heater simulating FR and an open
ended PT. The heater rod is made of a SS tube of 3 mm
thickness having 0.0635 m outer diameter and closed
110

Rectifier

1. AC 3 Phase Main
2. Bus Bar
3. Tank
4. SS Heater Rod (FR)
5. Both sides open ended tube
enclosure (PT)
6. Copper Clamps

FIG. 3 SCHEMATIC OF THE TEST SETUP OF EXPERIMENT

To simulate the heat generation in simulated

segmented reactor channel, a DC rectifier power
supply of capacity 42 kW (12V/3500A) is used. The FR
is connected to bus bars of rectifier at both the ends by
copper flanges. A copper foil inserted in between
flange and FR has helped to reduce electrical contact
resistance. The clamps are bent into L-shaped to
accommodate the horizontal gap between the bus bars.
The flange is connected to the rectifier by four 99%
electrolytic grade copper bus bars having crosssectional area of 10 mm 6 mm.
The temperatures of FR are measured with minerally
insulated ungrounded K-type thermocouples of 0.5
mm outer diameter. The calibrated thermocouples
were spot welded on FR and PT. Routing of
thermocouples was done with thin SS/Zr foils, spot
welded to the respective metallic surface. The
temperature on the PT and FR is measured at center of
the test section. Four and nine numbers of
thermocouples are used to record the temperature of
the FR and PT respectively as shown in Figure 4.
Thermocouples are placed on PT at an angular
position of 0, 45, 90, 135, 170, 190, 225, 270, 315

International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Engineering Volume 3 Issue 4, December 2013

with respect to vertical plane starting from top of the

tube. Accurate temperature measurement at bottom
surface of PT is carried out by placing two
thermocouples at 10 apart. Fixing thermocouples in
this manner ensured proper line contact between FR
and PT. The water bulk temepeartures are measured
inside the test section i.e gap between FR and PT, test
section exit and at vessel exit. The initial levels of each
experiment are measured from a manual level
indicator. The temperatures have been recorded at an
interval of 1 s using Data Acquisition System (DAS)
made by National Instruments.
Rectifier End 1

Thermo couple
Position

1. Heater Rod (FR)

2. Enclosure Tube (PT)

www.ijnese.org

experimentation period. For this reason, no additional

make up is added to the tank.
The test matrix used for the study shown in Table I is
planned to find out the effect of boil off on the FR
heatup from different submergence levels.
Results and Discussions
It is evident from fully submerged experiments that a
steam and water stratified counter current flow gets
established. The generated steam leaves the upper
section of the annulus flow path whereas the deficient
water is replenished with incoming water from tank
pool as illustrated in Figure 5.

Rectifier
375

Axial Location of Thermocouple

1

1
4

FR

Steam Outflow

2
2

9
8

4
3

Water Ingress

PT

7
6

Circumferential Locations of Thermocouples

FIG. 4 AXIAL AND CIRCUMFERENTIAL LOCATION OF

THERMOCOUPLES

Power calibration is carried out during the water

preheating (60C) period by calorimetric method.
Electrical power to coolant is estimated from rise in
fluid temperature. A uniform fluid heatup is ensured
by stirring the water at a regular interval. The
measured electrical power from current and voltage
input across the FR is found to be in well agreement
with thermal power calculated from fluid heatup and
the system heat loss. The system heat loss is estimated
to be 3% of the electrical power input.
TABLE I TEST MATRIX

Power

6 kW

Water Level (mm)

82.55
50
30
20
10

Power

8 kW

Water Level (mm)

82.55
50
30
20
10

The level is considered to be constant over the period

of partially submerged experiments. This is due to
large horizontal tank inventory as compared to the
amount of water getting boiled off during the

FIG. 5 SCHEMATIC SHOWING COUNTER CURRENT FLOW

WITNESSED DURING THE TESTS FOR ALL WATER LEVELS

A stratified flow condition exists during the boil-off

period, exposing the upper section of FR to a high
steam void condition. For partially submerged
experimental cases, a similar counter current flow is
evident with in the test section. The generated steam
travels through the upper exposed FR section of the
annulus flow path where as water from tank pool
enters through the lower submerged FR section of the
test section. The results of 6 and 8 kW are discussed in
the following subsections.
Thermal Response for 6 kW Power
The circumferential temperature variation of FR and
PT for a full submergence case is shown in Figure 6.
With switching on the heater power, the FR heatup
begins. It is observed that rate of temperature rise of
FR is linear in the initial period, after which it
decreases and attains a constant temperature. A
marginal circumferential temperature gradient with
maximum at the top (98C) is evident due to setup of
natural convective flow over the heated body and
contact heat removal between FR and PT at bottom
section. Subsequently, after the initiation of boiling at
around 1125 s, the circumferential gradient reduces as
generated steam removes the heat uniformly from FR
111

www.ijnese.org

International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Engineering Volume 3 Issue 4, December 2013

surface. A large circumferential temperature gradient

is evident for PT with the initiation of experiment. The
bottom of PT is found to be at higher temperature (PT5,
PT6) than top section (PT1) during initial phase of the
experiment. The maximum temperature of PT attained
at bottom is 92C. This is due to contact conductance
between FR and PT. The circumferential temperature
gradient gets minimized after the setup of boiling
followed by effective cooling to the PT surface by
generated steam .

The circumferential temperature variation of FR and

PT for partially submerged case for 30 mm water level
(36%) is shown in Figure 7. It is observed that
temperature at the top of FR (exposed part) rises
sharply due to switching on the heater power at the
beginning of experiment and reaches maximum
(123C). Subsequently, temperature falls to FR
temperatures of submerged sections. The drop in
temperature of the top of FR is attributed to cooling
effect of steam generated in the annulus of the FR and
PT. The steam formed in the submerged section moves
in upward direction and leaves from upper section of
annulus flow path, simultaneously water enters from
the bottom section of annulus flow path, thus a flow
circulation is set.
The temperature observed in PT shows that a
circumferential temperature gradient remains through
out the experiment period. The exposed section
remains at higher than that of the submerged section.
This is in expected line as heat transfer in the
submerged section is higher due to boil-off condition
than that of the exposed section. The temperature of
exposed PT increased quickly within 50 s and
stabilizes near 94C, while submerged PT takes a
longer time and stabilizes at around 92C.

FIG. 6 CIRCUMFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE TRANSIENT FOR

FR AND PT IN FULLY SUBMERGED CASE

FIG. 8 CIRCUMFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE TRANSIENT FOR

FR AND PT IN FULLY SUBMERGED CASE

Thermal Response for 8 kW Power

FIG. 7 CIRCUMFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE TRANSIENT FOR FR
AND PT IN PARTIALLY SUBMERGED CASE

112

The thermal behavior of FR and PT under fully

submerged condition for this case is similar as

International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Engineering Volume 3 Issue 4, December 2013

observed for 6 kW heating rate case. The temperature

transients are shown in Figure 8. However, the
maximum temperature at FR1 and PT are found to be
99C and 96C respectively. The maximum
temperatures are found to be higher as compared to 6
kW heating case because of higher heating load. The
circumferential temperature variation of FR and PT for
30 mm water level is shown in Figure 9.

www.ijnese.org

conducted at different water levels of 82.55 (100%) -10

mm (12%) range, and temperature of the submerged
section in all cases is found to be near the water
saturation temperature, but the exposed section attains
different temperature. The temperature variation of
the top most part of FR with time at different water
levels is shown in Figure 10 for (a) 6 kW and (b) 8 kW
heating respectively. Table 2 summarizes all the tests
observation. For fully submerged cases, Figure 10 and
Table II show that temperature at FR1 position attains
a constant temperature of 98-99C against measured
saturation temperature of 96C inside the test section.
The value of saturation temperature is found to be low
as compared to local atmospheric pressure. A maximum
error of 1.5C can occur for K type thermocouples as
per specification. However, applying similar error for
other surface measurements, the difference of temperature
between surface and saturation temperature remains
same. This substantiate with the fact that surface
superheating of 2-3C is minium required for nucleation
[Collier, J. G]. A vigorous boiling is observed, and
steam flow rate of magnitude of 2.65 gm/s and 3.55
gm/s for 6 and 8 kW cases respectively are estimated.

FIG. 9 CIRCUMFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE TRANSIENT FOR

FR AND PT IN FULLY SUBMERGED CASE

The temperature profiles follow a similar trend to that

of the 6 kW heating with same water level. However
the maximum temperature of the exposed FR is 178C,
which is much higher than the temperature attained in
6 kW heating case. Moreover, the temperature of the
exposed FR does not come back to the temperature of
other locations. This could be attributed to higher
heating rate and poor convective cooling.
The equilibrium temperature of the exposed section
remains higher than the other locations. The PT
temperature of PT, exposed to air, is at lower
temperature initially and attains a higher temperature
in steady state. PT surrounded by the tank, heat
transfer from PT to tank body is by convection and
radiation. On the other hand, in the submerged section,
heat transfer from PT to water is by convection only.
However, not much influence of asymmetric heat up
condition of FR is reflected on the PT thermal behavior.
Effect of Submergence on Peak FR Temperature
As

already

mentioned,

experiments

have

been

FIG. 10 TEMPERATURE TRANSIENT FOR TOP EXPOSED

SECTION OF THE FR AT DIFFERENT WATER LEVEL FOR 6 KW
AND 8 KW HEATING

For partially submerged cases, the FR1 temperature

rises above saturation temperature for all the
submerged cases during initial period of test and
attains a pseudo steady state, except submergence at
12%.

113

www.ijnese.org

International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Engineering Volume 3 Issue 4, December 2013

TABLE II EXPT. RESLUT SUMMARY

Tests at 6 kW
Power level

Tests at 8 kW
Power level

Initial Test Levels &

Submergence state
82.55 mm F. S (100%)
50 mm P.S (61%)
30 mm P. S (36%)
20 mm P.S (24%)
10 mm Exposed (12%)
82.55mm F.S (100%)
50 mm P.S (61%)
30 mm P.S (36%)
20 mm P. S (24%)
10 mm Exposed (12%)

Peak Temp.
(FR1 position)
98C
103C
123C
185C
250C at 575 s
99C
125C
178C
204C
350C at 575 s

Time for peak

temp. turn around
75 s
675 s
Not applicable
175 s
225 s
300 s
-

Pseudo Steady State Temp.

(FR1 position)
98C
98C
102C
140C
Not attained
99C
99C
150C
140C
Not attained

F. S : fully Submerged; P. S: Partially submerged

Case : 6 KW Heating

Submerged
Exposed

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1.0

Heat Transfer Coefficeint (Wm2 K)

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Steam generation (g/s)
Case : 6 KW Heating

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

4.0

Submerged
Exposed

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Submergence (%)

Heat Transfer Coefficeint (Wm2 K)

14

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.5

Submerged
Exposed

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Steam generation (g/s)

Case : 8 KW Heating
Heat Transfer Coefficient (w/m2K)

Heat Transfer Coefficient (w/m2K)

Case : 8 KW Heating

14
12

Submerged
Exposed

10
8
6
4
2
0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Submergence (%)

FIG. 11 VARIATION OF HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS WITH SUBMERGENCE AND STEAM GENERATION

The initial heatup of FR1 is due to switching on the

power as described earlier and subsequent fall in
temperature of FR1 is due to heat removal by
generated steam from submerged heated portion of FR.
It is interesting to note that the lower the initial set
water level is, the higher the peak temperature and the
longer the time required for temperature is to turn
around to take place. As the water levels are brought
down in different experiments, the lower submergence

114

of FR produces less amount of steam, thus providing a

weak steam cooling. This leads to attaining a higher
FR peak temperature during pseudo steady state.
In case of very low water level (10 mm) where the FR
is almost exposed, the temperature at FR1 position
increases continuously for both the cases. This is due
to insufficient water in the annulus that leads to
negligible steam generation and related cooling.

International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Engineering Volume 3 Issue 4, December 2013

Temperature for 8 kW is found to be higher (350C)

than 6 kW case (250C) at 575 s as cited in Table II.
Higher power generation and almost negligible heat
removal from the generated steam leads to higher
heatup for 8 kW case.
Heat Transfer Analysis for characterization
A heat transfer analysis has been carried out to
characterize the defined heating system. Equation (1),
(2) and (3) are used to estimate steam generation rate,
heat transfer co-efficient for exposed (hes) and
submerged (hss) section respectively.

=
(1)

=
(2)
( )

=
(3)
( )
TABLE III ESTIMATED STEAM GENERATION RATE

Power
level

6 kW

8 kW

Submergence
levels(mm)
82.55
50
30
20
10
82.55
50
30
20
10

Submerged
heater section
power (%)
100
69.3
48.24
37.93
25.9
100
69.3
48.24
37.93
25.9

Estimated Steam
generation(g/s)
2.65
1.84
1.28
1.01
0.68
3.55
2.46
1.71
1.36
0.92

The estimated generated steam mass flow rate has

been found to vary between 2.65 0.26 g/s for 6 kW
power and 3.55 0.355 g/s for 8 kW power, depending
on the submergence levels. The convective heat
transfer coefficients for the exposed section (hes) and
the submerged (hss) of the heater body are estimated
with the help of measured electrical power,
apportioned to submerged and exposed section of the
heat generating body and measured steam/water and
surface temperatures at pseudo steady state. The
maxium difference in temperature of top FR and
bottom FR is found to be 50C (Fig. 10) under pseudo
steady state condition. The flow of heat is estimated to
be 0.052 kW for the stainless steel FR of 0.0635 m
diameter, thickness 0.003 m and having material
conductivity of 16 w/mK. To estimate the local heat
transfer coefficients, an assumption is made that under
pseudo steady state condition, a negligible amount of
heat generated in the exposed section is thermally
conducted to the submerged section. The estimated hes
is found to vary from as low as 0.69 kW/m2C to as

www.ijnese.org

high as 7.75 kW/m2C depending on the level of

submergence and power level. The estimated hss is
found to vary between 9.1-2.93 kW/m2C depending
on the level of submergence and power level. Table III,
IV, V illustrate the variation of steam generation, hes
and hss respectively at different power and
submergence levels. Figure 11 illustrates the variation
of both exposed and submerged section heat transfer
coefficients with water level and steam generation.
Steam generation is found to be the key factor for
attributing high and low heat transfer coefficients.
TABLE IV

Power
level
6 kW

8 kW

hes ESTIMATION FOR FOR EXPOSED SECTION

level
(mm)
50
30
20
10
50
30
20
10

Exposed heater
section power (%)
30.7
51.76
62.61
74.1
30.7
51.76
62.61
74.1

and
(C)
98, 96
102, 96
140, 96
*
99, 96
150, 96
140, 96
*

hes (kW/m2
C)
15.5
5.16
0.704
8.26
0.76
0.94
-

*pseudo steady state not attained

TABLE V

Power
level

6 kW

8 kW

hsS ESTIMATION FOR SUBMERGED SECTION

Level(mm)
82.55
50
30
20
10
82.55
50
30
20
10

Submerged heater
section power (%)
100
69.3
48.24
37.93
25.9
100
69.31
48.24
37.93
25.9

and
(C)
98, 96
98,96
98, 96
99, 96
*
99,96
99, 96
99, 96
99, 96
*

hss
(kW/m2 C)
15.5
10.74
7.47
5.87
13.66
9.46
6.53
5.1
-

*pseudo steady state not attained

An attempt has been made to generate heat transfer

coefficient correlations for exposed and submerged
heated sections. It is found from the Table IV and V
that for the exposed section, hse is a function of
temperature difference between exposed surface and
saturation temperature; however for submerged
section hss is found to have a strong function of
submergence level rather than temperature difference
between submerged surface temperature and
saturation temperature. Thus the correlations (Figure
12) for exposed and submerged section are generated
as a function of reciprocal temperature difference and
normalized submergence level (L/D) respectively.
Following are they,
= 0.642 + 14.833 ( )1
7.83 ( )2

(4)

115

www.ijnese.org

International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Engineering Volume 3 Issue 4, December 2013

= 0.642 + 14.833 ( )1
7.83 ( )2

(5)

An uncertainty analysis has been carried out to find

out the uncertainty in the prediction. The uncertainty
in measurement of the full range of power, level and
temperature are 1%, 1% and 0.4% respectively. Thus
the maximum uncertainty (Uh/h)% calculated
[Coleman et al.] in hse and hss are found to be 1.69%
and 2.2% respectively.
A comparison has been made between estimated hss
(fully submerged case) for the studied experiment and
heat transfer coefficient calculated from standard
correlations [Jakobs] for atmospheric pool boiling of
horizontal flat plate. Jakobs correlations are given as
follows,

= 1042 ( )0.33 for

< 16
(4)

and 0<( ) < 7.76 C

= 5.56 ( )3 for 16 < < 240,

(5)

7.32<( ) < 14.4C

Though the heat fluxes (31-41.3 kW/m2) for the

conducted experiment is applicable to second
correlation Eqs. (7), however, the observed (Tss-Tb)
range is not applicable for the correlation as they are
smaller (2-3C) than Jakobs correlation range of 7.3214.4C. Hence estimation has been done using both the
correlations. The comparison is given in Table VI
which shows a very high predicted value of heat
transfer coefficient (15.5 to 13.66 kW/m2 C) as

compared to the estimation done from Jakobs

correlation (1.3-1.49 kW/m2 C). The higher value
strongly indicates the effect of enclosure which
enhances the cooling many folds as compared to open
pool boiling case.
Conclusions
The heat transfer characterization study for the PHWR
dissembled reactor channel shows that the annulus
flow path created between heated cylindrical body (FR)
and enclosure tube i.e PT, has caused the generated
steam to attain a high velocity in the flow path; thus
offering a better convective heat transfer to the heated
body till the submergence level drops to 12%. The
surface temperature remains close to saturation
temperature for all the submergence levels. Surface
heatup is evident due to dryout for extremely low
submergence level due to lack of steam cooling.
Estimated heat transfer coefficients for exposed
surface was found to vary from as low as 0.76
kW/m2C to as high as 15.5 kW/m2C, depending on
the level of submergence and power level.
Based on the observation heat transfer coefficients
correlations for submerged (hss) and exposed (hes)
section of the heated body were proposed. The hes was
found to be a function of temperature difference
between the surface and bulk steam temperatures
where as hss is found to be a function of the
submergence level only.
10

-2
hes = 0.642+14.833[(Tes-Tb)-1-7.83 (Tes-Tb)

hss = -0.1158 + 14.5(L/D) -5.99 (L/D)2

9
8

hss (kW/m2 oC)

hes (kW/m2 oC)

Data Points
Polynomila Fit

7
6
5

Data Points
Polynomial Fit

4
3

0
-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

(Tes-Tb)-1 , o C-1

2
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Submergence Level (L/D)

FIG. 12 DEVELOPMENT OF HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT CORRELATIONS FOR SUBMERGED AND EXPOSED SECTIONS
TABLE VI ESTIMATED HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT COMPARISON FOR 100% SUBMERGED CASE

Fully submerged cases

q/A (kW/m2)

Ts-Tb (C)

hss (kW/m2 C) with eq.6

hss (kW/m2 C), with eq.7

6 kW

31.0

1.309

0.044

15.5

8 kW

41.1

1.497

0.150

13.66

116

hss from the expt. (kW/m2 C)

International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Engineering Volume 3 Issue 4, December 2013

Nomenclature

www.ijnese.org

Indian Institute of Technology, Rookee, India, for his

review and expert comments on the study.

Heater surface area

PT diameter

REFERENCES

hfg

latent heat of vaporication

Bajaj, S. S., Gore, A. R. The Indian PHWR Nuclear

Submergence level

Engineering and Design, Volume 236, Issues 78, April

steam mass flow rate

2006, Pages 701-722

heater power

temperature

Water Reactors. IAEA- TECDOC-1594, Vienna, June

heat transfer coefficient

2008.

uncertainty

Subscripts
b

bulk

es

exposed surface

ss

submerged surface

heat transfer coefficient

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors wish to acknowledge Prof. P. K. Sahoo,

Lee, S. Analysis of Severe Accidents in Pressurized Heavy

Hahne, E. Pool Boiling and the Effect of Pool Geometry.

Warne-und Stoffubetragung Vol. 17, pp. 55-159, 1983.
Collier, J. G. Convective Boiling and Condensation.
McGraw- Hill, 1972
Jakob, M., Hawhin, G. Elements of Heat Transfer. 3rd
Edition, John Wiley Sons., 1957.
Coleman, Huge, W., Experimentation and uncertainty
analysis for Engineers, 2nd Edition, 1989.

117