JakobCHR.com

Quick Navigation:
 

Personal:

 Go to Home
 MS Research
 PhD Research
 Curriculum Vitae

General:

 Linux

Soon to come:

 Matlab
 On-line Stores
 Cycling
 Medicine & Health
 LaTeX
 OOP & C++
 Sony PCM-R500 DAT

  Contents   Index

Validity of the Chen correlation

The original data base used to validate the Chen correlation is given by

$$\begin{eqnarray*} p &=& 0.09\rightarrow 3.45 {\mbox{ MPa}} \\ \mbox{$<\!{G}\!... ...W}}/{\mbox{m}}^2 \\ \mbox{$<\!{x}\!>$}&=& 0.0\rightarrow 0.7 \end{eqnarray*}$$

$\parbox{1.50cm}{\begin{eqnarray} \end{eqnarray}}$

However, the pressure range has been extended by General Electric data to 6.9 MPa.

A typical normal operation BWR situation reads

$$\begin{eqnarray*} p &=& 7 {\mbox{ MPa}}\\ \mbox{$<\!{G}\!>$} &=& 800 {\mbox{ ... ...}}/{\mbox{m}}^2\\ \mbox{$<\!{x}\!>$}&=& 0.0 \rightarrow 0.15 \end{eqnarray*}$$

$\parbox{1.50cm}{\begin{eqnarray} \end{eqnarray}}$

which indicates that Chen's correlation is suitable.

It should be noted that several authors question the validity of the rather old Chen correlation. Both Lellouche and Zolotar [33] and Steiner and Taborek [49] can see no justification for the suppression factor concept when reviewing experimental data. Furthermore, Steiner and Taborek identifies that a simple addition of $h_{\mbox{\protect\scriptsize c}}$ and $h_{\mbox{\protect\scriptsize NcB}}$ is insufficient--instead they propose $[h_{\mbox{\protect\scriptsize c}}^3+h_{\mbox{\protect\scriptsize NcB}}^3]^{1/3}$.

Even though Collier and Thome [19] recommend the Steiner-Taborek correlation as the probably most accurate currently available saturated flow boiling heat transfer correlation we will stick to the Chen correlation since it has a wide acceptance in the nuclear industry.

  Contents   Index  
 
 
 

Top Quality Developed with Danish Brain Power