Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

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

Consideration on Nusselt numbers of liquid metals flowing in tubes T

Hiroyasu Mochizuki
Laboratory for Advanced Nuclear Energy, Institute of Innovative Research, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Representative experimental results for the heat transfer coefficients (HTCs) of liquid metals flowing in tubes
Nusselt number under turbulent conditions are reviewed from the standpoint of experimental apparatuses, instrumentations and
Liquid metal data derivation methods. Fourteen experiments are investigated together with replicated schematics of test
Mercury sections or apparatuses in literatures. These HTC data are classified into four groups based on the method to
Large Peclet number
determine three important elements to derive the heat transfer coefficient. The three important elements are
Experimental result
Turbulent flow
heat flux, wall surface temperature and bulk temperature. Group-1 data use measured wall temperatures and
CFD bulk temperatures derived on the basis of the measured temperature and velocity profiles in the fluid. These data
trends located on the higher Nusselt number sides among the reviewed data. While, in group-2 data, the bulk
temperature is linearly interpolated from the measured inlet and outlet temperatures. The data trends of this
group show lower in some extent than the former group especially in the low Peclet number region. It was
clarified from the schematic of the test sections and the experimental methods that some measured data contain
unclear factors. These data trends classified in the group-3 are clearly under the former two trends. The CFD
simulation results agree with the group-1 data. The impact of using a simply interpolated bulk temperature that
causes the HTC to lower is evaluated, and it is concluded that the impact can be neglected under the Peclet
number larger than 1000.

1. Introduction
The author has investigated the Nusselt (Nu) numbers of liquid
metals under the low Peclet (Pe) number conditions in the recent study
(Mochizuki, 2018). The low Pe number was less than approximately
100 where the flow was under the laminar or the transitional condition.
Since the trend of the Nu numbers measured by Johnson et al. (1953b)
was different from other data in the low Pe number region, the reason
of the extremely lowered Nu numbers was investigated. As a result of
the study, the strange tendency was possibly caused by the following
two reasons. 1) data processing methods that did not consider the
thermal resistance between an inner pipe and an outer pipe and 2)
adoption of the interpolated bulk temperature on the basis of the
measured inlet and outlet temperatures of the test section. The author
became keenly aware of the importance to investigate the Nu numbers
not from the experimental data themselves but from the standpoint of
experimental methods. Therefore, the motivation of the present study is
to review and classify the old and new measured data from the view-
point of experimental apparatuses and instrumentations as to whether
or not misunderstandings were contained in the derivation of the heat
transfer coefficient (HTC). Since the objective is slightly different from
the past review works, the present paper does not collect as many data
as possible but refers to representative data and discusses the data
quality.
Historically, Martinelli (1947) introduced the simultaneous heat
transfer by heat conduction and eddy diffusion into the turbulent flow
model which consisted of the laminar sublayer, the buffer layer and the
turbulent core. He proposed the complicated Nu number correlation as
a function of the Prandtl (Pr) number and the Pe number. Lyon (1951)
simplified his correlation keeping the Dittus and Boelter (1930) type
equation into mind and proposed the following correlation; Lyon
(1951)
εh
Nu = 7 + 0.025(σ Pe)0.8σ = =1
ετ (1)
The above correlation, so-called “Martinelli-Lyon correlation”, was
proposed on the basis of velocity profiles of the laminar flow and the
plug flow. He derived the Nu numbers of 4.36 and 8 for the viscous flow
without eddy and the plug flow, respectively. The constant 7 was
evaluated as the approximated value between two values. When the
heat is transferred from the wall to the fluid under the laminar vertical
flow conditions, the parabolic flow profile cannot be achieved, and the
profile is distorted by the buoyancy force near the wall. Therefore, the
constant becomes larger than 4.36. When the heat is transferred from
the fluid to the wall, the constant is close to 4.36 because the velocity

E-mail address: mochizuki.h@lane.iir.titech.ac.jp.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.05.022
Received 1 January 2019; Received in revised form 9 May 2019; Accepted 21 May 2019
0029-5493/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H. Mochizuki Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

Nomenclature ε eddy diffusivity (m2/s)

σ ratio of eddy diffusivities (-)
A heat transfer area (m2)
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K) Subscript
k thermal conductivity (W/m K)
Nu Nusselt number (-) al aluminum
Pe Peclet number (-) (=Re·Pr) b bulk
Pr Prandtl number (-) h heat transfer
Prt Turbulent Prandtl number (-) (=ετ/εh) i inlet or interpolated
Q net electrical input (W) m mean
R overall thermal resistance (m2K/W) o outlet
Re Reynolds number (-) s steel
r radius (m) t thermocouple position
T temperature (K) w wall
u velocity (m/s) τ momentum

profile is nearly parabolic as discussed in the previous study by the correlation could agree with the measured data. Tayler (2016) modified
author. The constant 0.025 was selected to represent the calculated the above correlation with different constants which were obtained by
results of the Nu number using the von Karman (1939), Nikuradse the least square method of recent experimental data as follows;
(1932) equations for velocity distribution. Seban and Shimazaki (1951)
1 −1
also conducted the similar study as that of Lyon and proposed the fol- σ= = aRe0.45Pr 0.2 ⎧1 − exp ⎛
⎜
0.45 0.2
⎞⎫
⎟

lowing correlation; Seban and Shimazaki (1951) Prt ⎨

⎩ ⎝ (bRe Pr ) ⎠ ⎬ ⎭ (5)

Nu = 5 + 0.025Pe0.8 (2) Nu = 5.72 + 0.0184(Pe)0.8205 , when a = b = 0.01592 (6)

Since then a lot of experiments have been conducted using several Nu = 5.51 + 0.015(Pe)0.865 , when a = 0.01171, b = 0.00712 (7)
kinds of liquid metals and provided precious empirical correlations.
In the above studies, the ratio of eddy diffusivities was assumed as Since the above correlations, Martinelli-Lyon and Seban-Shimazaki,
unity. However, Aoki (1963) introduced the ratio of eddy diffusivities are based on the turbulence theory, many researchers are apt to use.
between heat transfer and momentum transfer into the Lyon’s corre- Lubarsky and Kaufman (1955) reviewed heat transfer data in the la-
lation, and proposed the following correlation; Aoki (1963) minar flow and the turbulent flow regimes. They proposed the fol-
lowing empirical correlation including all data in those days; Lubarsky
Nu = 6 + 0.025(σ Pe)0.8 (3) and Kaufman (1955)
Nu = 0.625Pe0.4 (8)
−1
where, σ = 0.014Re0.45Pr 0.2 ⎧1
− exp ⎛⎜ ⎟
⎞⎫
⎨ (0.014Re0.45Pr 0.2) ⎬
(4) The above correlation was derived under an influence of the lower
⎩ ⎝ ⎠⎭
side data, and the correlation has been used as a kind of safety-side
He mentioned in his study that the constant of 7 was slightly large. correlation in the reactor design. However, it was studied recently that
As suggested by the above studies, the constant was decided so that the the measured Nu numbers in the low Pe number regions less than 100

Fig. 1. Representative experimental data of the Nu numbers measured from 1951 to 2013.

2
 H. Mochizuki

Table 1
List of experiments and evaluation conditions.
Reserchers Year Liquid metal and material of test Wall temperature Bulk temperature Points of data Data condition
section

Isakoff and Drew 1951 Mercury, stainless steel Extrapolated by measured temperature Calculated using measured temperature and 17 Digitized data from a figure
profile in fluid velocity profiles
Stromquist 1953 Mercury with wetting agent, low- Extrapolated by measured outside wall Interpolated from inlet and outlet temperatures 89 Table list in the report
carbon steel temperature
Johnson, Clabaugh and Hartnett 1953 Mercury with wetting agent, mild Calculated from temperature in outer jacket Interpolated from inlet and outlet temperatures 139 Table list in the report
steel
Johnson Hartnett and Clabaugh 1953 Lead-Bismuth, mild steel Calculated from temperature in outer jacket Interpolated from inlet and outlet temperatures 22 Table list in the report
Petukhov and Yushin 1961 Mercury, mild carbon steel Extrapolated by measured outside wall Interpolated from inlet and outlet temperatures 119 Digitized data from a figure
temperature
Subbotin et al. 1961 Alkali metals, stainless steel Extrapolated by measured temperature Calculated from assumed velocity and measured 94 Digitized data from a figure

3
profile in fluid temperature profiles
Subbotin et al. 1963 Mercury, nickel Extrapolated by measured outside wall Interpolated from inlet and outlet temperatures 62 Digitized data from a figure
temperature
Subotine et al. 1963 Sodium-Potassium, stainless steel Extrapolated by measured outside wall Interpolated from inlet and outlet temperatures 90 Digitized data from a figure
temperature
Skupinski, Tortel and Vautrey 1965 Sodium-Potassium, copper Extrapolated by measured channel block Interpolated from inlet and outlet temperatures 82 Digitized data from a figure
temperature
Merriam 1965 Mercury, pure nickel Temperature measurement between Inlets and outlets of the heat exchanger are 23 Table list in the report
primary and secondary measured.
Holtz 1965 Sodium-Potassium, 316 stainless Estimated by measured outside wall Interpolated from inlet and outlet temperatures 30 Digitized data from a figure
steel temperature
Ampleyev, Kirillov, Subbotin and 1969 Sodium-Potassium, stainless steel Extrapolated by measured temperature Calculated from assumed velocity and measured 84 Digitized data from a figure
Suvorov profile in fluid temperature profiles
Talanov and Ushakov 1969 Sodium-Potassium, stainless steel Extrapolated by measured profile Interpolated from inlet and outlet temperatures 44 Table list in the report
Kinoshita, Kaminaga, Haga and 2013 Mercury, 316 stainless steel Estimated by measured outside wall Interpolated from inlet and outlet temperatures 63 Digital data obtained by private
Terada temperature communication
Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19
H. Mochizuki
possibly contain large errors. Kutateladze et al. (1959) also reviewed
the major works in Soviet Union using the forms of empirical correla-
tions. Dwyer (1965) reviewed developments in liquid metal heat
transfer from the stand points of theoretical and empirical results. His
review and investigation include the heat transfer of the flow not only
in a pipe but also in various geometries such as concentric annuli, rod
bundles, etc. In recent years, Mikityuk (2009) reviewed the heat
transfer to liquid metals flowing in a triangular or square lattice of
cylindrical rods with different pitch-to-diameter ratios for a wide range
of the Pe numbers (30–5000), and analyzed using a number of corre-
lations recommended for liquid metal flowing in tube bundles. A new
correlation has been proposed as a best fit to the data analyzed. Jaeger
(2017) also reviewed as many as 82 kinds of measured data for liquid
metals. He investigated the HTC data for not only the round tubes but
also several kinds of geometries including the rod bundles. Especially a
table in his paper represents a concise introduction of the data. These
activities are very precious for many researchers.
However, the author gets anxious that these activities will be in vain
if the data used in the study contain deficiencies as the author men-
tioned in the previous study (Mochizuki, 2018). Therefore, the deri-
vation method of the heat transfer data should be investigated through
the original paper when empirical correlations are discussed. The Nu
numbers of liquid metals measured as a function of the Pe number is
illustrated in Fig. 1. Many data measured with the mercury are illu-
strated together with some data using the sodium-potassium alloy in the
figure because the Nu numbers by Stromquist (1953) measured with the
mercury locate on the lower side under the large Pe number conditions.
In contrast, the Nu number data by Isakoff and Drew (1951) locate on
the highest side although they used the mercury as the liquid metal
fluid. In the past, there was a discussion that the heat transfer char-
acteristics were different between the mercury and the other liquid
metal such as the liquid sodium. However, it is clear that such a kind of
argument is not true through Fig. 1. The data specifications are sum-
marized in Table 1. Was the scattering of data caused by random errors?
It seems to the author that there are some other reasons which cannot
be explained by wetting or non-wetting conditions or some other
physical effects to reduce the HTC. Therefore, experimental apparatuses
used to measure the HTCs should be investigated. Although the appa-
ratuses or the test sections are drawn as same as possible to the original
Fig. 2. Axial temperature distribution in the experiment with sodium-potassium by Ampleyev et al. (1969).
4
Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19
ones, some parts are not exact because of unclear old figures. Please
refer to the original figure if you need to know further. The bulk tem-
perature is also investigated whether they used a proper method to
estimate. The rigorous bulk temperature should be evaluated by the
following integration of the radial temperature and the velocity profiles
although many researchers used to use the linearly interpolated tem-
perature from the outlet and inlet temperatures;
r
∫0 w ruTdr
Tb = r
∫0 w rudr (9)
As shown in Fig. 2 by Ampleyev et al. (1969), the actual bulk
temperature of the liquid metal is higher than the temperature given by
the straight line drawn through points obtained in the inlet and the
outlet mixing temperatures. Since this result was obtained under the Pe
number was 10 and Reynolds (Re) number was 400, the above tem-
perature difference was large, and the temperature difference possibly
be getting smaller under the turbulent conditions. Since the tempera-
ture difference between the heat transfer surface and the bulk is small
in case of the liquid metal, the bulk temperature should be strictly
defined. The same issue was discussed by Mochizuki (2018) because the
temperature difference to derive the HTC was generally several degrees
in the experiment using the sodium-potassium alloy. A small tempera-
ture error included in the temperature difference causes a large error of
the HTC.
2. Experimental apparatuses and instrumentations
2.1. Apparatus and measurement of Isakoff and Drew
The schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus by Isakoff and
Drew (1951) is illustrated in Fig. 3. They used mercury as a liquid metal
fluid. The material of the test section was stainless steel. They explain
about the apparatus as follows. “The mercury flowed vertically upward
through the test section, an electrically heated 18.6-ft (5.67 m) length
of 1.5-in.-ID (38.1 mm) seamless tubing, and was returned through a
cooler by a constant displacement rotary-pump. The pump was of
carbon steel; all other parts of the circuit in contact with the mercury
were of 18-ft (4.49 m), 8-in. (203.2 mm) stainless steel. In the test
H. Mochizuki Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

Fig. 3. Experimental apparatus of Isakoff and Drew (1951).

section, at cross sections 58, 98, and 138 tube diam. from the bottom heat transfer surface and the bulk. These temperatures were directly
flange, provision was made for traversing the stream either for velocity decided by the measured result. Therefore, the obtained HTCs provide
or temperature as desired. The velocity probe was an impact tube with undeniable data. In Fig. 1, the data trend of the Nu numbers locates on
its tip extending 0.50 in. (12.7 mm) upstream from the 1/8-in. the largest side among the investigated data.
(3.175 mm) tube that support it. The tip was cut off square in a plane
perpendicular to the stream; its outside diameter was 0.008 in.
2.2. Apparatus and measurement of Stromquist
(0.203 mm) and the diameter of the opening was 0.006 in. (0.152 mm).
The test section was heated by a closely spaced nichrom-ribbon winding
The schematic of the test section of the experimental apparatus by
insulated from the tube by a smooth cement and pipe insulation and
Stromquist (1953) is illustrated in Fig. 4. He used the mercury with
was separated in several sections. At seven locations the test section was
sodium as a wetting agent and the test section was made of low-carbon
ringed by eight thermocouples, each mounted in an accurately cut
steel. Although he also conducted tests using the pure mercury which
longitudinal groove in the outer surface of the tube.”
does not have wetting characteristics, these data are omitted from the
As they mentioned above, velocity distributions and temperature
present review. The test section was heated by passing electric current
distributions in the test section were measured using specially fabri-
through the wall. This is a very unique heating method and should be
cated devices shown in Fig. 3. The devices of the impact tube and the
checked carefully. He described in his report as follows. “Heat gen-
thermocouple are shown in the same figure. Temperature was mea-
eration in the mercury, which is a conductor, would be a distracting
sured by a butt-welded junction of 0.0031-in.-diam (0.0787 mm) iron-
effect, but this effect could be reduced to minor proportions by the use
constantan wires. They confirmed that the integrated value of the ve-
of thick-walled tubing. A preliminary apparatus of this type was as-
locity distribution agreed with the indication of the orifice meter within
sembled and tested, and the feasibility of such a system was established.
5 percent error. Therefore, the measured profile is credible.
Four interchangeable test sections were used, all made from cold-drawn
They extrapolated the measured fluid temperature to determine the
seamless steel tubing having nominal outside diameter twice the
wall temperature. The bulk temperature was derived according to the
nominal inside diameter. Three of the test sections were made up of
definition using the velocity and the temperature profiles. The HTC was
tubing in the as-received condition, with nominal inside diameter of 3/
derived from the heat flux and the temperature difference between the
8 (9.525 mm), 1/2 (12.7 mm), and 3/4 (19.05 mm) inches.” “The

5
H. Mochizuki
Fig. 4. Experimental apparatus of Stromquist (1953).
mercury temperatures were measured at the thermometer wells. The
mixed mean temperatures within the test section were interpolated
from the measurements at the inlet of the test section and at the mixing
chamber. The inside wall temperatures were derived from temperatures
of the outer tube surface measured by twelve iron-constantan thermo-
couples spot-welded to each test section at intervals thought its length.”
The iron wire, lying in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the tube, was
first spot-welded to the tube, and then the constantan wire was spot-
welded on top of the iron wire in order to minimize stray currents in the
thermocouples.
Since the bulk temperature was not measured directly, in general,
the lower HTC would be evaluated. If the heat flux and the thermal
conductivity of the test section were appropriately evaluated, the wall
temperature of the heat transfer surface could be evaluated properly.
However, the most anxious point is the electric conduction of the
mercury in the test section. He assumed the uniform electric currents in
the pipe wall. He investigated the heat generation in the mercury and
concluded that this effect was negligible under the turbulent flow
conditions when the wall thickness was increased. The above conclu-
sion suggests that the electric current might not be uniform in the pipe
wall and the current flux near the outer surface might be larger than the
other side. This means that his assumption was not correct. This results
in overestimation of the inner surface temperature that attributes the
low HTC. If electric currents flow in the mercury, heat is generated in
the fluid. However, since he processed measured results without as-
suming heat generation in the fluid, the heat generation in the pipe wall
could be also overestimated. The heat transfer coefficient can be de-
duced correctly when the electric currents run uniformly only in the
pipe wall. Therefore, the correct HTC cannot be measured in his method
unless the electric current is uniform in the pipe wall and does not
penetrate the inner wall. In Fig. 1, his results for the mercury with the
wetting agent locate on the lowest Nu number side among the
6
Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19
investigated data. The measured results without the wetting agent were
lower than the above result by a factor of 6 to 7 in his experiment.
2.3. Apparatus and measurement of Johnson et al.
The test section of the experimental apparatus by Johnson et al.
(1953a) is illustrated in Fig. 5. They conducted heat transfer experi-
ments using the mercury with wetting agents. They explained about the
apparatus as follows. “The test section is a 4 ft. (1.22 m) long, 0.750 in.
(19.05 mm) O.D., 0.652 in. (16.56 mm) I.D. mild-steel tube with a
0.25 in. (6.35 mm) thick aluminum jacket attached to the tube by the
‘almibond’ casting process. Axial heat flux is minimized by circumfer-
ential grooves dividing the jacket into eight sections, each six inches in
length. A thermocouple is located in each section, permitting eight
separate determinations of the HTC. Each iron-constantan thermo-
couple is positioned at one end of a 1–1/2 in. (38.1 mm) long, 1/8 in.
(3.175 mm) deep, 3/32 in. (2.38 mm) wide axial slot, cemented in with
Ames Technical B copper-oxide cement and capped with an aluminum
bar. Fluid temperatures are measured by single junction iron-con-
stantan thermocouples in steel wells installed in pairs at the entrance
and exit sections.”
They used the following equations without thermal resistances
which could be caused by a gap between the steel pipe and aluminum
jacket, and cementing of thermocouples to derive the HTCs of liquid
metals flowing in the composite pipe structure (Johnson et al., 1953a);
Q T − Tm
= t
A R (10)
rw ⎛ rt ⎞ r r 1
R= ln⎜ ⎟ + w ln ⎛ o ⎞ +
⎜ ⎟
kal ⎝ ro ⎠ ks ⎝ rw ⎠ h (11)
H. Mochizuki
Fig. 5. Schematic of the test section of Johnson et al. (1953a,b).
h=
Q number increased, and the heat flux was almost constant. Due to the
A (Tw − Tm ) (12)
They assumed clearly that two kinds of pipes contacted as a one-
piece metal based on their fabrication method. However, as pointed out
by Mochizuki (2018), the thermal resistances between the composite
pipes could change drastically during the experiment because the
temperature of the test section changed according to the test conditions.
Johnson et al. (1953b) conducted heat transfer experiments using the
lead-bismuth and the mercury under the low Pe number conditions. The
data shown in Fig. 1 are the Nu numbers for the mercury and the lead-
bismuth in the case of Johnson et al. (1) and Johnson et al. (2), re-
spectively. As discussed by Mochizuki (2018), their data were ex-
tremely shifted on the lower side of the Nu number in the low Pe
number region because of the uncertain wall temperature caused by the
thermal resistance which varied by different temperature conditions.
Since the bulk temperature was interpolated from temperatures at the
inlet and the outlet of the test section, the HTC was possibly lowered.
They noticed that the measured data trend changed chronographically.
They discussed the effect of gas on the heat transfer coefficient, but they
were unaware of the thermal resistance change of the gap.
If we look into precisely the measured data of Johnson et al.
(1953a), it can be shown that the fluid temperature decreased as the Pe
7
Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19
experimental conditions, it can be estimated that the gap width be-
tween the composite pipes possibly increased because the outer alu-
minum jacket was heated and the inner mild steel pipe was cooled as
the Re number increased. Since the contact resistance which was
changed by the contact pressure possibly increased and resulted in the
higher temperature in the aluminum jacket. Due to this temperature,
the heat transfer wall temperature was possibly estimated higher be-
cause they did not take into account the contact resistance in the
equation. This could result in the lower Nu number under the large Pe
number conditions. Therefore, it is conceivable that the data by
Johnson et al. (1953a) contain some uncertainties caused by the contact
resistance between the composite pipes. Among the data investigated,
the Nu numbers in their study are as low as the Nu numbers by
Stromquist.
2.4. Apparatus and measurement of Petukhov and Yushin
The experimental apparatus of Petukhov and Yushin (1961) is il-
lustrated in Fig. 6. As for the fluid and the material of the test section,
they used the mercury, and the mild carbon steel for the test section of
504 mm in length, respectively. The inside and outside diameters of the
H. Mochizuki Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

Fig. 6. Schematic of the experimental apparatus of Petukhov and Yushin (1961).

test section were 7.24 mm and 12.03 mm, respectively. The test section
was heated by a coaxial heater made from thin stainless steel which had
3 mm gap between the heater and the test section. The DC power was
used to generate heat. The apparatus is very unique one. The driving
force of the mercury flow is the mercury head. Both reservoirs were
moved in opposite directions by the shafts driven by a motor. The flow
rate was changed by changing the gear ratio. They measured outer
surface temperatures of the test section using 7 thermocouples. After
the thermocouples were installed, the recess was filled with litharge
(PbO). In order to reduce heat loss from the test section, this part was
confined in a vacuum chamber. The mixing temperatures at the inlet
and the outlet were measured. The bulk temperature was linearly in-
terpolated from these temperatures and was corrected taking into ac-
count the axial thermal conductivity of mercury and the heat flux

Fig. 7. Schematic of the test section of Subbotin et al. (1961).

8
H. Mochizuki Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

change. The value of the temperature correction equation shown in the from the outside. Dimensions of the test section are as follows; inside
literature was in the range of 0.1–0.01 K. This value could not have a diameter: 0.022 m, heated length: 1 m, length of entrance region:
large effect on the simply interpolated bulk temperature from measured 0.88 m, length of outlet region: 0.17 m, thickness of copper tube: 9 mm.
temperatures. Therefore, the method to derive the HTC becomes similar The test section is heated by a heater cable. The cable consists of a
as that of Stromquist. Although the measured data are constrained in nickel-chrome wire and an Inconel sheath of 2 mm diameter. Tem-
the slightly lower Pe number region compared to the other data, there is perature is measured by a chromel-alumel thermocouple contained in
no disputable thing in the measurement. an inconel sheath of 1 mm in outside diameter. The temperature of the
test section is measured by 14 thermocouples. One thermocouple is
2.5. Apparatus and measurement of Subbotin et al. installed on the base of the small copper cylinder which is inserted in
the test section. The small cylinder is strongly pressed on the bottom of
The horizontal test section of the experimental apparatus by the ditch by the swaging method. The temperature on the heat transfer
Subbotin et al. (1961) is illustrated in Fig. 7. This schematic is rotated surface is derived using the measured temperature, the thermal con-
90 degrees according to the description of the horizontal flow in the ductivity of the copper and the heat rate. The bulk temperature of the
article although the original figure is drawn as a vertical test section. liquid metal is linearly interpolated from the measured temperatures at
They used alkali metals to measure HTCs. The test section was made the inlet and the outlet.
from 1Kh18N9T stainless steel. The fluid temperature was measured by The HTC was derived from the heat flux and the temperature dif-
use of the movable thermocouple with two tips. The thermocouple ference between the heat transfer surface and the bulk. Since the bulk
consisted of 0.2 mm diameter nichrome-constantan wires inserted in a temperature was interpolated from the measured inlet and the outlet
stainless steel capillary of 0.8/0.15 mm in diameter. The thermocouple temperatures, it might be slightly lower than the actual temperature. It
could move in the radial direction of the test section by two reversible is expected that the HTC was evaluated slightly to the lower side. Their
electric motors, and the position was set by a dial gauge. At the section data show the typical trend among the investigated data as illustrated in
where the movable thermocouple was located, three nichrome-con- Fig. 1.
stantan thermocouples were set in the tube wall. The heater was a 3 mm
nichrome wire which was insulated from the wall by a uniform mica
layer with 0.4 mm in thickness. The heat loss from the test section was 2.7. Apparatus and measurement of Merriam
measured and compensated by the heater located at the outside of the
test section. The test section of the experimental apparatus by Merriam (1965) is
The HTC was derived from the heat flux and the temperature dif- illustrated in Fig. 10. He used the mercury as a liquid metal fluid and
ference between the heat transfer surface and the bulk. The surface the test section was made from pure nickel. The test section consists of a
temperature was extrapolated from the measured temperature profile in tube and a shell. He described about the test conditions as follows:
the liquid metal. They derived the bulk temperature by the integration “mercury and nickel form a wetting system, and, hence, the possibility
of the measured temperature profile and the assumed velocity profile of the existence of an additional thermal-contact resistance at the heat-
based on Eq. (9). They assumed the velocity profile based on the von transfer surface would be minimized.” The entrance-region had an
Karman’s logarithmic velocity distribution for the turbulent flow.
Therefore, the three elements to derive the HTC are fulfilled. As illu-
strated in Fig. 1, their data are one of the highest trends which agree
with Eq. (1).
They also evaluated the HTC taking into account the thermal con-
tact resistance at the heating surface. According to their results, the
alkali metals have no resistance between the stainless steel and the
fluid. While, the heavy metals have a large contact resistance between
the stainless steel and the fluid.
The data measured by Subbotin et al. (1963) have also been in-
troduced in the above study. They used the test section illustrated in
Fig. 8. The test section was an approximately 700 mm long, 12 mm
O.D., 0.4 mm thick nickel tube. The test section was covered with many
copper rings with 50 mm O.D. and 20 mm thick. There was no gap
between the rings and the Ni tube by the zone melting method. Each
ring had a 1 mm gap between the copper rings to minimize axial heat
conduction. The rings were heated by nichrome heaters wound around
the rings. The bulk temperature was linearly interpolated from fluid
temperatures which were measured by thermocouples in pairs at the
inlet and outlet sections. Temperatures in the copper rings were mea-
sured with moving thermocouples in capillaries. Ni wall temperatures
were extrapolated by the measured copper temperatures and the heat
flux. They also measured the HTC with a combination of the sodium-
potassium in a stainless steel pipe.

2.6. Apparatus and measurement of Skupinski et al.

The test section of the experimental apparatus by Skupinski et al.

(1965) is illustrated in Fig. 9. Since the used language of the literature is
French, names of components are translated in English. They used the
sodium-potassium alloy to measure the HTCs. They described about the
experimental apparatus as follows. The test section consists of three
tubes of which centers are lined. A tube made from copper is heated Fig. 8. Schematic of the test section of Subbotin et al. (1963).

9
H. Mochizuki Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

Fig. 9. Schematic of the test section of Skupinski et al. (1965).

insulating air gap with approximately 300 mm. This was approximately
20 D of 15.6 mm ID of the test section. The heat exchange was con-
ducted under the concurrent flow conditions. Therefore, the flow at the
measured section is supposed to be the fully developed turbulent flow.
He estimated a heat flow across the air gap is of less than 1% of the total
heat flow in the heat exchanger. The author becomes curious about the
heat leakage through the end plates at the inlet and the outlet sections
as the Merriam was pointed out, and the radiative heat transfer at the
air gap. Since there is no descriptions about the latter issue, it is not
clear whether or not these issues were appropriately taking into account
to determine the heat flux.
A hole with 0.067-in. (1.70 mm) diameter was drilled to insert a
thermocouple. The thermocouple was the sheathed copper-constantan
type. The material of the sheath was stainless steel. The wall

Fig. 10. Schematic of the test section of Merriam (1965).

10
H. Mochizuki Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

temperatures on the primary and secondary sides were interpolated
using this temperature. Under these conditions, the heat flux for the
heat exchanger can be derived using the heat exchanger theory under
various flow conditions. The bulk temperatures on both sides were in-
terpolated by the measured inlet and outlet temperatures of both fluids.
Therefore, the method to derive the HTC is same as the other methods
which derive the HTC from the heat flux and the temperature difference
between the heat transfer wall and the bulk. It is conceivable that the
overall HTC should have been evaluated appropriately if the evaluation
of the heat loss was correct, although using the interpolated bulk
temperature should be taken into account.
temperature was derived using the velocity and temperature profiles.
The HTC was derived from the heat flux and the temperature difference
between the heat transfer surface and the bulk. Therefore, the HTCs in
their study were deduced based on the important three elements.
There are two kinds of legend by Ampleyev et al. in Fig. 1. Am-
pleyev et al. (1) and Ampleyev et al. (2) correspond the above men-
tioned method 1) and 2), respectively. Both measured results roughly
consistent with each other and the trend of the data shows one of the
highest Nu numbers among the investigated data.
2.10. Apparatus and measurement of Talanov and Ushakov

2.8. Apparatus and measurement of Holtz

The test section of the experimental apparatus by Talanov and
Ushakov (1969) is illustrated in Fig. 13. They used the eutectic alloy
The experimental apparatus of Holtz (1965) is illustrated in Fig. 11.
(22% sodium + 78% potassium) in the flow circuit made from
He used the sodium-potassium alloy (NaK-78) as a liquid metal fluid
1Kh18N9T stainless steel. “The stainless tube, 19.5 mm in diameter and
and the test section was made from 316 stainless steel. The test section
with a wall thickness of 0.4 mm, was plated by a copper layer of about
was heated by radiation. The heated length, outside diameter and
7.8 mm by the zone melting method. The entrance flow stabilization
thickness of the test section were 16-in. (406.4 mm), 0.5-in. (12.7 mm),
segment comprised 20d, the heating length was about 940 mm (about
0.035-in. (0.889 mm), respectively. Heat flux was determined by two
50d). The pipe was provided at its ends with mixing chambers in which
methods, i.e., utilizing an energy balance of the fluid passing through
the mixed mean temperature of the sodium-potassium coolant was
the test section, and from power measurement. Two chromel-alumel
measured. To measure the pipe wall temperature six thermocouples,
thermocouples were installed at the inlet and the outlet of the heated
two of which could be moved along the entire heated segment, were
section. The bulk temperature was interpolated by these temperatures.
built into the copper shell. The movable thermocouples were placed in
As far as the schematic of the loop shows, there were no chambers or
copper capillaries 1.5/0.6 mm in diameter, inserted at a distance of
mixers to mix the fluid at the inlet and the outlet of the test section.
2.4 mm from the heat transfer surface and placed in longitudinal slots in
Therefore, it is a question whether or not the correct mixing tempera-
diametrically opposite sides of the pipe. The movable thermocouples
ture was measured. Three chromel-alumel thermocouples were spot
were made from copper and constantan wires 0.09 (mm) in diameter”.
welded on the outside of the pipe in the middle of the heated section.
Although the test section consisted of a stainless steel tube and
The inside wall temperature was calculated from these temperatures.
copper tube which formed a composite pipe, there was no gap between
According to the description on the instrumentations, it is expected
them. Therefore, the situation is quite different from the test section of
that the HTC was derived appropriately if the mixing temperatures
Johnson et al. (1953a). The HTC was derived from the heat flux and the
were correctly measured.
temperature difference between the heat transfer surface and the bulk.
Since the bulk temperature was interpolated from the measured inlet
2.9. Apparatus and measurement of Ampleyev et al.
and outlet temperatures, it might be slightly lower than the actual
temperature. It is expected that the HTCs plotted in Fig. 1 were eval-
The test section of the experimental apparatus by Ampleyev et al.
uated slightly to the lower side. However, these data show a typical
(1969) is illustrated in Fig. 12. They used the sodium-potassium alloy to
trend among the investigated data as illustrated in Fig. 1 as well as the
measure HTCs. This result was introduced in a book translated by NASA
trend by Skupinski et al.
(Ampleyev et al., 1969; Talanov and Ushakov, 1969). The flow circuit
was made from 1Kh18N9T stainless steel. The fluid used in the ex-
periment was the sodium-potassium alloy. “The test section consists of a 2.11. Apparatus and measurement of Kinoshita et al.
2700 mm long copper pipe with an inside diameter of 50 mm and wall
thickness of 5 mm. The pipe is connected to mixing chambers by flanges Kinoshita et al. (2013) measured the HTC using a mercury experi-
employing a ball-and-socket joint. The mechanism for moving the mental loop. They conducted experiments for a spallation target system
thermocouple and a rubber packing gland, which is fastened by a to produce neutrons. The test section illustrated in Fig. 14 is made from
connector nut, is placed on the top chamber cover. Longitudinal
grooves 3 mm deep are milled in the pipe wall and chromel-alumel
thermocouples are placed in them. The hot junctions of the thermo-
couples are caulked by copper wedges, and the electrodes are provided
with aluminum insulation. The copper pipe is insulated by micanite
0.2–0.3 mm thick, on which is placed a nichrome heater from wire
3.5 mm in diameter with a pitch of 4 mm; then asbestos insulation,
thermometers and compensating heaters were placed over the pipe.”
The temperature distribution in the liquid metal flow was measured
by a movable thermocouple which could move in both longitudinal and
lateral directions. The driving mechanism of the thermocouple is
omitted from Fig. 12. If you refer to the original article, you can un-
derstand its mechanism. The HTC was derived by two methods: 1) from
the temperature distribution of the wall along the length of the section
and of the temperature of the liquid in the mixing chambers and 2) from
the temperature distribution in the alloy flow. In terms of the velocity
distribution of the fluid, they assumed the von Karman’s logarithmic
velocity distribution for the turbulent flow and the parabolic distribu-
tion was assumed for the laminar flow within Re < 2300. The wall
temperature was evaluated by the measured data and the bulk Fig. 11. Schematic of the experimental apparatus of Holtz (1965).

11
H. Mochizuki
Fig. 12. Schematic of the test section of Ampleyev et al. (1969).
stainless steel. According to the description in the paper, the test section
and the instrumentation are as follows. “The heated test section was a
circular tube of 15A-Sch80, made of type 316 stainless steel, with in-
ternal diameter of 14.3 mm, thickness of 3.7 mm and 1000 mm in
length (effective heated length of 600 mm). The test section was the
stainless steel tube covered with heater block of 4.5 kW. Three grooves
were cut spirally on the copper block surface in which three heaters
were installed in parallel over the whole length of the heater block.
Also, 32 thermocouples were installed on the surface of the stainless
steel tube. The thermocouples for tube surface temperature measure-
ment were set into grooves along the axial direction, at 20 mm inter-
vals. Two thermocouples were inserted into the tube to measure the
inlet and the outlet mercury temperatures.”
It is estimated that the wall temperature might be estimated cor-
rectly because they measured the outside temperature of the test sec-
tion. However, the bulk temperature used to derive the HTC might be
slightly lower than the actual temperature as shown by Ampleyev et al.
because they evaluated the bulk temperature by an interpolation be-
tween the measured inlet and outlet temperatures. They also conducted
simulations under the test conditions using the STAR-CD code.
3. Discussion on experimental data
When we apply a 1D system code to calculate the heat transfer from
a heated surface to a fluid, we need the HTC. Under this situation, we
12
Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19
calculate the heat transfer based on the heat flux from the heated sur-
face, the surface temperature and the bulk temperature of the fluid.
These three elements should be correctly determined in the experiment
to derive the HTC. Therefore, measured HTCs mentioned above are
divided into the following four groups.
Group-1: The data derived under the conditions where the above
mentioned three elements are fulfilled.
Group-2: The derived data containing an assumption in the bulk
temperature which is interpolated by the measured inlet and outlet
temperatures.
Group-3: The derived data containing an assumption in the bulk
temperature which is interpolated by the measured inlet and outlet
temperatures, and containing unclear effects in the measurement.
Group-4: Others
The data by Isakoff and Drew (1951), Subbotin et al. (1961) and
Ampleyev et al. (1969) are classified into the group-1. Only Isakoff and
Drew measured the velocity profile in the liquid metal among in-
vestigated literatures. The other two studies measured the temperature
profiles and the velocity profiles are assumed based on the equation of
the turbulent flows. Nevertheless, their data are precious because the
HTC is evaluated based on the bulk temperature derived by the defi-
nition. The measurement of temperature profile in the liquid metal is
not easy. Above all, the measurement of the velocity profile in the
H. Mochizuki Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

Fig. 13. Schematic of the test section of Talanov and Ushakov (1969).

liquid metal comes with difficulty.
The most data are classified into the group-2. Since these data were
not derived with the perfect method, one has to be careful about the
situation that the data are slightly underestimated due to the under-
estimated bulk temperature. When the bulk temperature is interpolated
from the measured inlet and outlet temperatures of the liquid metal, the
temperature becomes lower than the real bulk temperature as pointed
out Ampleyev et al. (1969) (see Fig. 2). The difference between the real
bulk temperature and the interpolated temperature can be evaluated by
the CFD simulations.
The data by Stromquist (1953) and by Johnson et al. (1953a) are
classified into the group-3. Two Nu number trends locate far below
other data trends. Although the Nu numbers by Stromquist (1953) and
Johnson et al. (1953a) were derived using the same method as that of
Kinoshita et al. (2013), data trends are quite different from that of the
Kinoshita et al. as illustrated in Fig. 15. It is difficult to explain the gap
between them only from random errors. The author think that Johnson
et al. mistook to select the thermocouple locations. If they installed the
thermocouples on the outer surface of the mild steel test section, the
author imagines that they had the similar results as those in the group-
2. In terms of the experiment by Stromquist, it is a question why he did
not use a sheathed heater which Isakoff and Drew applied. Their efforts

Fig. 14. Schematic of the test section of Kinoshita et al. (2013).

13
H. Mochizuki
Fig. 15. Comparison of three kinds of data measured under the similar conditions.
are commendable. However, this is the time when these data should be
put aside as reference data.
The data by Merriam (1965) are classified into the group-4 because
of measurement using a heat exchanger, although everything seems to
be correct except the heat loss at the entrance region of the heat ex-
changer. Nevertheless, the data trend shifts on the lower side.
Ibragimov et al. (1960) conducted experiments with mercury and lead-
bismuth alloy using a tube-in-tube type countercurrent heat exchanger
made from 1Kh18N9T stainless steel. This test section has a similar
configuration as that of Merriam. The temperatures in the heat ex-
change wall between the liquid metal and water at the inlet and the
outlet were measured, and the wall temperature was estimated by
compensating the wall thickness. The heat flux was determined by these
temperatures and the mass flow rate. There is no more information
about the derivation equation of the HTC in the article. The bulk
temperature was interpolated by the measured inlet and outlet tem-
peratures of the liquid metal. Therefore, the procedure of the mea-
surement seems to be correct. However, there is neither figure of the
apparatus nor instrumentations in the article. Therefore, further
Fig. 16. Mesh configuration of the test section of experimental apparatus by Johnson et al. using FLUENT.
14
Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19
discussion is not possible to evaluate the quality of the measured data.
The Nu numbers as a function of the Pe number show almost the similar
trend as that of Johnson et al. (1953a) although the data are not illu-
strated in Fig. 1. It is natural to think that there were some peculiar
things in the experiment, however, it is regrettable not to discuss these
issues. Since water was used as the secondary fluid which had a re-
markably larger thermal resistance for the heat transfer than that of the
liquid metal, this combination possibly gave an influence.
4. Discussion based on CFD simulation and correlation
4.1. Simulation using CFD code and comparison of Nu numbers
In order to simulate the experiment by Johnson et al. (1953a), a
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model (b) shown in Fig. 16 has
been prepared using the ANSYS Workbench 18.1. The geometry is the
same one which was used in the previous study (Mochizuki, 2018). The
simulation model (a) is the same one which was used in the previous
study. The fluid region consisted of 5 blocks. The peripheral direction
H. Mochizuki Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

was uniformly divided into 20. The center region of the fluid had rec-
tangle shape with 20 by 20 uniform meshes. The fluid region near the
steel wall was divided into 15 with unequal mesh widths. Number of
meshes in longitudinal direction was 610, i.e., in every 2 mm. The first
mesh height was 3.64 × 10−5 m and consecutive meshes were ex-
panded with the growth rate of 1.2 to the fluid center direction. Since
the laminar or the transition k-kl-ω model was used in the previous
simulation, the wall function was not needed. However, since the
standard k-ε turbulence model is used in the present simulation, y+ of
the first mesh height should be around 30. Therefore, the fluid region
near the steel wall is divided into 10 with unequal mesh widths, and the
first mesh height is changed to 1.01 × 10−4 m. In total, the number of
meshes of the calculation model is approximately 1.4 million. In order
to confirm the simulation variance, another simulation using the low Re
number turbulence model without wall function is conducted using the
transition k-kl-ω or transition shear stress transport (SST) k-ω model.
The non-slip boundary condition is used at the interface between
the fluid and the steel wall. A wall roughness 20 μm is assumed, al-
though there is no information on the roughness of the test section. A
uniform heat flux at the outside wall of the jacket is given to the code so
as to have the same heat rate of the experiment at the inside surface of
the steel pipe. The heat rate is adopted from the table in the paper. In
order to give a fully developed flow regime at the inlet, once a pipe flow
without heating and with uniform velocity at the inlet is calculated
using the same calculation system. In the first step calculation, a spe-
cific fluid temperature and a constant pressure are set at the inlet, and
the constant pressure is set at the outlet. The calculated velocity com-
ponents for each flow regime and the additional turbulent information
at the outlet of the test section are transferred to the inlet of the test
section with heating for the consecutive calculation.
Seven selected test results by Johnson et al. (1953a) are simulated.
The representative data are listed in Table 2. In the table, Tm and Tw-Tf
stand for arithmetic mean temperature of the mercury and temperature
difference between the wall and the fluid, respectively. The same
conditions in the experiment have been simulated by the FLUENT code.
The simulation results using the k-ε turbulence model are listed in
Table 3. In the table, Tb stands for the bulk temperature derived using
Eq. (9) at the mid-plane of the test section. Since the calculated outlet
temperature is almost same as the measured temperature although a
slight difference due to the physical properties is observed. It is clear
that the HTC in the simulation is larger than the experimental result by
Johnson et al. The difference of the HTCs is mainly caused by the wall
temperature difference between the experiment and the simulation. As
discussed in the previous section, this difference is possibly caused by
the gap resistance between the steel wall and the aluminum jacket. The
simulation results are plotted together with the measured results and
also the results in the laminar and transitional flow conditions in
Fig. 17. The simulation results using the SST k-ω model or the k-kl-ω
model are listed in Table 4. In this case the SST k-ω model is used when
the Pe number is greater than 1000. The results by the k-ε model give
almost the same as those by the SST k-ω model or the k-kl-ω model. The
measured data in the group-3 containing unclear effects are omitted
from the figure. A similar comparison between the measured data in the
group-1 and simulations is illustrated in Fig. 18. The simulation results
using FLUENT (Mochizuki, 2018) under the low Pe number conditions
are also plotted. The simulation results are in the data distribution band
and are in good agreement with the measured results. The simulation
results by Kinoshita et al. (2013) using the STAR-CD code provide
slightly low Nu numbers compared to the results of FLUENT. The au-
thor has learned through the private communication that they derived
the HTC using the heat flux, the temperature at the heating surface and
the interpolated fluid temperature. The difference between two simu-
lations is possibly dependent on the evaluation method of the HTC
because the y+ value of the first mesh height is around 30, and the k-ε
turbulence model is applied in both simulations.
4.2. Discussion on correlation
As shown from these two figures, the simulation results are in good
agreement with the measured results in the group-1 derived by the
perfect conditions. While, the other data groups are clearly lower than
the group-1 especially under the low Pe number conditions. In terms of
the correlation, Taler (2016) has modified the correlation proposed by
Aoki (1963) as shown in Eq. (7). Aoki changed the constant of the
correlation by Lyon (1951) from 7 to 6. However, the original constant
seemed to be better according to the present review. Therefore, the
modified Aoki correlation using constants proposed by Taler becomes
as follows;
Nu = 7 + 0.025(σ Pe)0.8 (13)
−1
σ = aPe0.45Pr −0.25 ⎧1 − exp ⎛ ⎞⎫
⎨ b Pe0.45Pr −0.25 ⎬
⎩ ⎝ ⎠⎭ (14)
where a = 0.01171 and b = 0.00712.
The above equations are approximated by the following correlation
as a similar form studied by Taler (2016).
Nu = 6.7 + 0.015Pe0.869 (15)
The modified Aoki correlation is illustrated in Figs. 17 and 18.
Better agreement has been obtained between the above correlation,
measured results and simulation.
4.3. Discussion on problem of interpolated bulk temperature
The importance of the evaluation method of the bulk temperature is
investigated using the calculated results. Fig. 19 illustrates the simu-
lated velocity and temperature profiles in the experiment (Johnson
et al., 1953b) which is the case-5 in the previous result (Pe = 93.3)
(Mochizuki, 2018). Two kinds of bulk temperatures are also illustrated
in the same figure. There is a difference of bulk temperatures between
derived based on the definition (Eq. (9)) and linearly interpolated. As
shown in the figure, the difference is only 0.63 K. However, tempera-
ture difference needed for the heat transfer of liquid metal is only
4.36 K. Therefore, the above difference cannot be neglected.
The ratio of the difference of the bulk temperature between the
calculated one and the interpolated one divided by the temperature
difference between the wall and the bulk is illustrated in Fig. 20. The
numerator stands for the error caused by the interpolation, and the

Table 2
Representative data by Johnson et al. (1953a) for simulation.
W (kg/s) q (W/m2) Tm (K) To-Ti (K) Tw-Tf(K) h (W/m2K) To (K) Ti (K) ρi (kg/m3) ui (m/s) Nu Pe

0.2659 42902.4 370.37 68.89 10.500 4088.35 404.82 335.93 13360.9 0.0924 6.4 270
0.5027 45741.6 345.37 39.94 11.000 4145.13 365.34 325.40 13419.9 0.1739 6.9 530
1.0080 47634.3 329.26 21.17 8.167 5848.61 339.84 318.68 13457.9 0.3477 10.2 1120
1.6884 46687.9 322.04 11.94 6.556 7097.83 328.01 316.07 13475.0 0.5817 12.6 1920
2.5704 47634.3 316.48 8.06 5.611 8517.39 320.51 312.46 13488.1 0.8847 15.3 2960
4.9769 44479.7 327.04 4.06 3.889 11470.09 329.07 325.01 13463.2 1.7162 20.1 5580
8.4167 44479.7 319.26 2.44 3.000 14763.48 320.48 318.04 13481.5 2.8984 26.4 9650

15
H. Mochizuki Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

Table 3
Simulation results using FLUENT with k-ε model.
W (kg/s) q (W/m2) Tb (K) To-Ti (K) Tw-Tb (K) h (W/m2K) To (K) Ti (K) ui (m/s) Nu Pe

0.2659 42995.0 373.16 74.03 7.049 6099.10 409.96 335.93 0.0924 9.65 268.2
0.5027 45831.3 346.39 41.81 6.634 6908.86 367.21 325.40 0.1739 11.57 539.7
1.0080 47723.5 329.58 21.76 5.021 9204.32 340.44 318.68 0.3477 16.06 1130.5
1.6884 46767.0 322.45 12.74 4.192 11156.58 328.81 316.07 0.5817 19.83 1931.4
2.5704 47729.0 316.74 8.554 3.366 14181.80 321.01 312.46 0.8847 25.59 2989.1
4.9769 44560.8 327.08 4.129 2.035 21898.50 329.14 325.01 1.7162 38.45 5620.7
8.4167 44558.9 319.26 2.431 1.391 32034.04 320.485 318.04 2.8984 57.42 9716.9

Fig. 17. Comparison between measured results without group 3, correlations and simulations.

Table 4
Simulation results using FLUENT with k-kl-ω model or SST k-ω model.
W (kg/s) q (W/m2) Tb (K) To-Ti (K) Tw-Tb (K) h (W/m2K) To (K) Ti (K) ui (m/s) Nu Pe

0.2659 42991.0 373.14 74.31 7.099 6055.81 410.24 335.93 0.0924 9.58 268.2
0.5027 45842.4 346.33 41.81 6.895 6648.71 367.21 325.40 0.1739 11.14 539.8
1.0080 47716.4 329.53 21.69 5.246 9095.53 340.36 318.68 0.3477 15.87 1130.7
1.6884 46777.1 322.41 12.68 4.137 11307.87 328.75 316.07 0.5817 20.10 1931.7
2.5704 47725.6 316.70 8.486 3.246 14702.96 320.94 312.46 0.8847 26.54 2989.4
4.9769 44556.5 327.06 4.101 1.922 23176.62 329.11 325.01 1.7162 40.70 5621.0
8.4167 44548.2 319.25 2.423 1.384 32178.60 320.46 318.04 2.8984 57.68 9717.2

denominator stands for the temperature difference for the heat transfer
which is the temperature difference between the wall and the bulk. This
figure is made on the basis of the calculated temperatures. The legend
of the lead-bismuth is taken from the previous study (Mochizuki, 2018)
and the legend of the mercury stands for the simulated result of the
present study. A plot of experimental result by Ampleyev et al. (1969)
evaluated from Fig. 2 is also illustrated. According to this figure, the
interpolated bulk temperature contains a considerable error compared
to the bulk temperature derived from the integration under the low Pe
number conditions especially less than 100. Therefore, the magnitude
of the underestimation of the heat transfer coefficient in the experiment
is still large under the small Peclet number conditions even if the wall
temperature is evaluated correctly. It is conceivable that the error
caused by the interpolation can be neglected under the Pe number
conditions larger than approximately 1000. Since this is a characteristic
of the liquid metals, the temperature and velocity profiles should be
measured or estimated based on the flow characteristics in order to
derive the bulk temperature.
5. Summary
The Nu numbers for the liquid metals are reviewed from the
standpoint of the experimental apparatus, instrumentations and the
derivation method of the heat transfer coefficient. A single test section
which was heated from the outside was used in almost all experiments.
In the other method, a concurrent or a countercurrent heat exchanger
was used. There were two kinds of methods to derive the heat transfer
coefficient for the former case. In one method, the bulk temperature of

16
H. Mochizuki Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

Fig. 18. Comparison between measured results in group 1, correlations and simulations.

Fig. 19. Difference of bulk temperatures between derived by integration and linearly interpolated.

the fluid was derived based on the definition, and the bulk temperature
was interpolated from the measured inlet and outlet temperatures in
the other method. These measured heat transfer coefficients have been
classified into two groups, group-1 and group-2, respectively. The Nu
number in the group-1 shows generally higher value than that in the
latter case. Although it is shown by the simulation that the bulk tem-
peratures evaluated by two methods approach each other under the
large Pe number conditions, it is clear that the heat transfer coefficient
is underestimated to some extent in the case of the group-2. The Nu
number in the group-2 is considerably affected under the Pe number
less than approximately 1000. When the wall and the bulk temperatures
are appropriately evaluated, the Nu numbers agree with the
correlations by Martinelli-Lyon and modified Aoki. The simulated re-
sults agree with the group-1 Nu numbers. Therefore, the author re-
commends that the heat transfer coefficient derived on the basis of the
definition should be used for the development of the other empirical
correlation. Also, there are some data which contain unclear factors.
These data are remarkably low in regard to the Nu number. It is pre-
ferable that the heat transfer coefficients for the other geometries
should be investigated from the standpoint of measurements and data
processing methods although the present study has investigated for
tube flows.

17
H. Mochizuki Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19

Fig. 20. Ratio of the bulk temperature difference between derived from the definition and interpolated one to the temperature difference between the wall and the
bulk (CFD analysis).

Acknowledgement Heat Transfer. NACA TN 3336.

Lyon, R.N., 1951. Liquid metal heat-transfer coefficients. Chem. Eng. Progr. 47 (2),
75–79.
The author would like to express his sincere thanks to Dr. Hidetaka Martinelli, R.C., 1947. Heat transfer to molten metals. Trans. ASME 69, 947–959.
Kinoshita and his co-authors who provided him a set of precious digital Merriam, R.L., 1965. An Investigation of Liquid-Metal Heat Transfer in a Concurrent-
data. Flow, Double-Pipe, Heat Exchanger. Argonne Natinal Laboratory ANL-7056.
Mikityuk, K., 2009. Heat transfer to liquid metal: review of data and correlations for tube
bundles. Nucl. Eng. Des. 239, 680–687.
References Mochizuki, H., 2018. Consideration on Nusselt numbers of liquid metals under low Peclet
number conditions. Nucl. Eng. Des. 339 (2018), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nucengdes.2018.09.010.
Ampleyev, N.A., Kirillov, P.L., Subbotin, V.I., Suvorov, M.Ya., 1969. Heat transfer with
Nikradse, J., 1932. Gesetzmassigkeiten der Turbulenten Stromung in Glatten Rohren,
liquid metal in a vertical pipe at low Peclet numbers, Liquid Metals. Atomizdat,
VDI-Forschungsheft, 356, 1-36.
Moscow In: Kirillov, P.L., Subbotin, V.I., Ushakov, P.A. (Eds.), Transaction of
Petukhov, B.S., Yushin, A.Ya., 1961. Heat exchange during the flow of liquid metal in the
“Zhidkiye Metally”, pp. 8–27.
laminar and transition regions. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 136 (6), 1321–1324 (in
Aoki, S., 1963. A Consideration on the Heat Transfer in Liquid Metal. Bulletin of the
Russian), (O тeплooбмeнe пpи тeчeнии жидкoгo мeтaллa в лaминapнoй и
Tokyo Institute of Technology, pp. 63–73.
пepexoднoй oблacтяx, Дoклaды Aкaдeмии Hayк CCCP).
Dittus, F.W., Boelter, L.M.K., 1930. Heat Transfer in Automobile Radiators of the Tubular
Seban, R.A., Shimazaki, T.T., 1951. Heat transfer to a fluid flowing turbulently in a
Type. The University of California Publications in Engineering, pp. 443–461.
smooth pipe with walls at constant temperature. Trans. ASME 73, 803–809.
Dwyer, O.E., 1965. Recent Development in Liquid-Metal Heat Transfer. Brookhaven
Skupinski, E., Tortel, J., Vautrey, L., 1965. Determination des coefficients de convection
National Laboratory, BNL, pp. 9597.
d’un alliage sodium-potassium dans un tube circulaire. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 8,
Holtz, R.E., 1965. Investigation of heat transfer to liquid metals flowing in circular tubes.
937–951.
AIChE J. 11 (6), 1151–1153.
Stromquist, W.K., 1953. Effect of Wetting on Heat Transfer Characteristics of Liquid
Ibragimov, M.Kh., Subbotin, V.I., Ushakov, P.A., 1960. Investigation of heat transfer in
Metals (thesis). University of Tennessee, United States Atomic Energy Commission
the turbulent flow of liquid metals in tubes. Atomnaya Energiya 8 (1), 54–56.
ORO-93.
Isakoff, S.E., Drew, T.B., 1951. Heat and Momentum Transfer in Turbulent Flow of
Subbotin, V.I., Ibragimov, M.Kh., Ivanovskii, M.N., Arnol’bov, M.N., Nomofilov, E.V.,
Mercury. United States Atomic Energy Commission, AECU-1199.
1961. Heat-transfer from the turbulent flow of liquid metals in tubes. Translated
Jaeger, W., 2017. Heat transfer to liquid metals with empirical models for turbulent
Atomnaya Energiya 11 (2), 133–139.
forced convection in a various geometries. Nucl. Eng. Des. 319, 12–27.
Subbotin, V.I., Ushakov, P.A., Gabrinovich, B.N., Talanov, V.D., Sviridenko, I.P., 1963.
Johnson, H.A., Hartnett, J.P., Clabaugh, W.J., 1953b. Heat Transfer to Lead-Bismuth and
Heat transfer with liquid mercury flow in circular tubes. J. Eng. Phys. 6 (4), 6–21 (in
Mercury in Laminar and Transitor Pipe Flow. United States Atomic Energy
Russian), (Cyббoтин, B.И, Ушaкoв, П.A., Гaбpиaнoвич, Б.H., Taлaнoв, B.Д.,
Commission, AECU-2637.
Cвиpидeнкo, И.П., Teплooбмeн пpи тeчeнии жидкиx мeтaллoв в кpyглыx тpyбax,
Johnson, H.A., Clabaugh, W.J., Hartnett, J.P., 1953a. Heat Transfer to Mercury in
Инжeнepнo-Физичecкий Жypнaл).
Turbulent Pipe Flow. United States Atomic Energy Commission, AECU-2627.
Talanov, V.D., Ushakov, P.A., 1969. Study of heat transfer in liquid metals in round pipes,
Kinoshita, H., Kaminaga, M., Haga, K., Terada, A., Hino, R., 2013. Experimental study on
Liquid Metals. Atomizdat, Moscow In: Kirillov, P.L., Subbotin, V.I., Ushakov, P.A.
heat transfer and pressure drop in mercury flow system for spallation neutron source.
(Eds.), Transaction of “Zhidkiye Metally”, pp. 1–7.
J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 50 (4), 400–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2013.
Taler, D., 2016. Heat transfer in turbulent tube flow of liquid metals. Procedia Eng. 157,
773160.
148–157.
Kutateladze, S.S., Borishanskii, V.M., and Novikov, I.I., 1959. Heat transfer in liquid
von Karman, T., 1939. The analogy between fluid friction and heat transfer. Trans. ASME
metals, 9, 214-229.
61, 705–710.
Lubarsky, B., Kaufman, S.J., 1955. Review of Experimental Investigations of Liquid-Metal

18
H. Mochizuki
Hiroyasu Mochizuki received a B.Sc. degree in 1972, followed by an M.Sc. and finally
received a Ph.D. in 1979, all at the Tokyo Institute of Technology in Tokyo, Japan. His
professional carrier started in 1978 at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) until
2006, as a scientist in the area of reactor thermal hydraulics. He was invited as a Visiting
Professor at the Graduate School of Nuclear Power and Energy Safety Engineering at the
19
Nuclear Engineering and Design 351 (2019) 1–19
University of Fukui from 2006 until 2008 and became a Professor in 2008 at the same
university. From 2009 to 2016, he was a Professor at the Research Institute of Nuclear
Engineering, University of Fukui, in Tsuruga, Japan. From 2017 onwards, he is a specially
appointed Professor at the Laboratory for Advanced Nuclear Energy, Institute of
Innovative Research in the Tokyo Institute of Technology.