ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Human Factors, Instrumentation & Controls
Improving task performance, system reliability, system and personnel safety, efficiency, and effectiveness are the division's main objectives. Its major areas of interest include task design, procedures, training, instrument and control layout and placement, stress control, anthropometrics, psychological input, and motivation.
2021 Student Conference
April 8–10, 2021
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
Fusion Science and Technology
NC State celebrates 70 years of nuclear engineering education
An early picture of the research reactor building on the North Carolina State University campus. The Department of Nuclear Engineering is celebrating the 70th anniversary of its nuclear engineering curriculum in 2020–2021. Photo: North Carolina State University
The Department of Nuclear Engineering at North Carolina State University has spent the 2020–2021 academic year celebrating the 70th anniversary of its becoming the first U.S. university to establish a nuclear engineering curriculum. It started in 1950, when Clifford Beck, then of Oak Ridge, Tenn., obtained support from NC State’s dean of engineering, Harold Lampe, to build the nation’s first university nuclear reactor and, in conjunction, establish an educational curriculum dedicated to nuclear engineering.
The department, host to the 2021 ANS Virtual Student Conference, scheduled for April 8–10, now features 23 tenure/tenure-track faculty and three research faculty members. “What a journey for the first nuclear engineering curriculum in the nation,” said Kostadin Ivanov, professor and department head.
S. J. Mokry, P. L. Kirillov, I. L. Pioro, Y. K. Gospodinov
Nuclear Technology | Volume 172 | Number 1 | October 2010 | Pages 60-70
Technical Paper | Thermal Hydraulics | dx.doi.org/10.13182/NT10-A10882
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
This paper presents selected results on heat transfer to supercritical water flowing upward in a 4-m-long vertical bare tube. Supercritical water heat transfer data were obtained at pressures of [approximately]24 MPa, mass fluxes of 200 to 1500 kg/m2s, heat fluxes up to 874 kW/m2 , and inlet temperatures from 320 to 460°C for several combinations of wall and bulk-fluid temperatures that were below, at, or above the pseudocritical temperatures.In general, the experiments confirmed that there are three heat transfer regimes for forced-convection heat transfer to water flowing inside tubes at supercritical pressures: (a) normal heat transfer regime characterized in general with heat transfer coefficients (HTCs) similar to those of subcritical convective heat transfer far from the critical region, which are calculated according to Dittus-Boelter-type correlations; (b) deteriorated heat transfer (DHT) regime with lower values of HTC and hence higher values of wall temperature within some part of a test section compared to those of the normal heat transfer regime; and (c) improved heat transfer regime with higher values of HTC and hence lower values of wall temperature within some part of a test section compared to those of the normal heat transfer regime.These new heat transfer data are applicable as a reference dataset for future comparison with supercritical water bundle data and for a verification of scaling parameters between water and modeling fluids.Also, these HTC data were compared to those calculated with the original Dittus-Boelter and modified Bishop et al. correlations. The comparison showed that the modified Bishop et al. correlation (i.e., the Bishop et al. correlation with the constant proposed by Kirillov et al.), which uses the cross-sectional averaged Prandtl number, represents HTC profiles more correctly along the heated length of the tube than the Dittus-Boelter correlation. In general, the modified Bishop et al. correlation shows good agreement with the experimental HTCs outside the pseudocritical region; however, it underpredicts the experimental HTCs within the pseudocritical region. The Dittus-Boelter correlation can also predict experimental HTCs outside the pseudocritical region but deviates significantly from experimental data within the pseudocritical region by up to four times.A reason for this deviation is that the Nusselt number in the Dittus-Boelter correlation and corresponding HTC values closely follow the regular Prandtl number (i.e., based on data from thermophysical properties tables), which in turn closely follows the peak in specific heat within the pseudocritical region. However, experimental HTC values show just a moderate increase within the pseudocritical region possibly due to significant variations of fluid temperature within the tube cross section. In this case, the bulk-fluid temperature might not be the best characteristic temperature at which all thermophysical properties should be evaluated. That is why the cross-sectional averaged Prandtl number is used in many supercritical heat transfer correlations instead of the regular one.A simple empirical correlation was proposed for calculating heat flux at the starting point of the DHT regime. However, it should be noted that both these correlations, i.e., the Dittus-Boelter and modified Bishop et al. correlations, cannot accurately predict HTCs within the DHT regime.