MODELING THE NUKIYAMA CURVE FOR

WATER-COOLED FUSION DIVERTOR CHANNELS

Theron D. Marshall Dennis L. Youchison Lee C. Cadwallader

CEA Sandia National Laboratories Idaho National Engineering
Cadarache - SERSI/LECC P.O. Box 5800 And Environmental Laboratory
13108 St. Paul-lez-Durance, FRANCE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 USA P.O. Box 1625
tdmarsh@free.fr (505) 845-3138 Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 USA
dlyouch@sandia.gov (208) 526-1232
lcc@inel.gov

ABSTRACT model of the Nukiyama curve. For the high-heat flux levels
A conclusive safety assessment of a fusion reactor and one-sided heating conditions of fusion devices, such a
requires that the thermal response of the divertor assembly is model would have to additionally demonstrate its
known with a high degree of accuracy. Such accuracy is applicability at fusion-relevant conditions and with
mandated because the divertor assembly is subjected to the prototypical fusion divertor channels.
highest levels of incident heat flux within the reactor. In
order to accurately predict the thermal response of the
divertor’s cooling channels, it is necessary to have a complete
model of the Nukiyama boiling curve for the water conditions
of interest. Currently published models of the Nukiyama
curve for fusion divertor channels have only included the
regimes of forced convection, partially and fully developed
nucleate boiling, and the local CHF. This paper presents a
model that includes these pre-CHF regimes and the post-CHF
regime of transition boiling. The model is unique because (1)
it tightly integrates the respective heat transfer correlations
and makes heat transfer predictions for the water conditions
and incident heat fluxes that are fusion-specific, (2) predicts
post-CHF heat transfer properties for a swirl tape divertor
channel, and (3) validates its predictions via comparison with
experimental data. Based on these three points, this model is
considered as one of the best available methods for predicting
the Nukiyama curve for a water-cooled fusion device.
I. INTRODUCTION
To receive regulatory licensing, commercial fusion
power plants will be required to demonstrate the accuracy of Figure 1: Nukiyama’s Boiling Curve.
their thermal predictions for the internal components of the
reactor. It is reasonable to expect that the regulatory agency
will be especially attentive to the thermal calculations of the This paper discusses a physical heat transfer model that
divertor coolant channels since by the nature of the divertor’s addresses the above requirements. The model includes all
design, these channels will receive the highest levels of regimes of the Nukiyama boiling curve that can be
incident heat flux within the reactor. anticipated for a water-cooled divertor channel. Furthermore,
Currently, there are many available correlations for the model has shown excellent agreement with experimental
predicting heat transfer in the individual regimes of the data from fusion-relevant experiments. The remainder of this
Nukiyama boiling curve [1] (Figure 1) when water is used as paper discusses the correlations of the model, the comparison
the coolant. Unfortunately, there is no physical model that of the model’s prediction with experimental data, and the
intimately integrates the correlations and forms a cohesive engineering software that was developed from the model.
II. HEAT TRANSFER CORRELATIONS 3. Partially Developed Nucleate Boiling. The
A. Bare Channel Mockup Bergles-Rohsenow [7] partial nucleate boiling correlation
was selected based on three factors: (1) the correlation’s
1. Forced Convection. For the forced convection good agreement with data from non-uniform heating
regime, Sieder-Tate [2] was the selected correlation. This experiments at fusion-relevant water conditions [4], (2) the
selection was based upon: (1) a thorough review of the forced logic of the correlation’s graphical approach, and (3) the
convection literature for fusion-relevant conditions [3],[4],[5] continuity of the correlation with Bergles-Rohsenow’s onset
and (2) the correlation’s excellent agreement with previous to nucleate boiling correlation. The correlation is written as:
heat transfer experiments at Sandia National Laboratories [6]
The correlation demonstrates the correct trends for the
2
heat transfer coefficient response and generally has very good é Φ fdb æ Φ öù
agreement with experimental data. It is written as: Φ pb = Φ fc 1+ ê ç1 − bi ÷ ú (4)
ç ÷
êë Φ fc è Φ fdb ø ú
û

æ k ö é
0.14 ù
æµ ö
h fc = ç ÷ ⋅ ê 0.027 Re 0.8 Pr1/ 3 ç b ÷ ú
çD ÷ ê
è hø ê
çµ ÷
è wø ú (1) Mbi = incipient boiling flux (W/m2)
ë úû
Mfc = forced convection flux (W/m2)
Mfdb = fully developed nucleate boiling flux (W/m2)
æv ρ ö Mpb = partially developed nucleate boiling flux
Re = Dh ⋅ ç b b ÷ (W/m2)
è µb ø
(2) 4. Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling. The Araki
C p µb [9] correlation was selected based on three factors: (1) the
Pr =
k correlation’s good agreement with data from non-uniform
heating experiments at fusion-relevant water conditions [6],
Cp = specific heat at constant pressure (J/kg-K) (2) the correlation’s range of experimental data envelopes the
range for fusion devices, and (3) the mockup was highly
Dh = hydraulic diameter (m) instrumented and the experiment meticulously performed.
hfc = forced convection heat transfer coefficient The correlation is:
(W/m2-K)
k = bulk liquid thermal conductivity (W/m-K) 3
é ù
Db = bulk liquid density (kg/m3) Φ fdb = ê ∆Tsat ú
ê P ú (5)
−
:b = bulk liquid viscosity (kg/m-s) êë 25.72 ⋅ e 8.6 úû
:w = wall liquid viscosity (kg/m-s)
vb = bulk liquid velocity (m/s) P = pressure (MPa)
2. Incipience of Boiling. Experimenters [7][4] have Mfdb = fully developed nucleate boiling flux, (MW/m2)
shown the Bergles-Rohsenow [8] incipient boiling correlation
to have good agreement with thermal data produced during )Tsat= wall superheat, Tw - Tsat (°C)
one-sided heating. The correlation is:
5. Critical Heat Flux. The Tong-75 [10] critical
2.1598 heat flux (CHF) correlation was selected because it (1)
Φ bi = 1082 P1156
.
[ . ( Tw − Tsat )
1799 ] P 0.0234 (3) satisfactorily incorporates the thermal and hydrodynamic
effects associated with the onset and progression of CHF, (2)
predicts the local CHF, (3) has been recommended for fusion
P = pressure (bar) CHF predictions [11], and (4) compares well with data
[12][13]. The correlation is written as:
Mbi = incipient boiling heat flux (MW/m2)
Tw = wall temperature (°C)
Tsat = saturation temperature (°C) [
Φ CHF = 0.23 f o GH fg 1 + 0.00216 Pratio
1.8
Re 0.5 Ja ] (6)
 f o = 8.0 Re − 0.6 Dratio
0.32 channel tubes. The following subsections discuss the swirl
D tape factors that were experimentally derived for each of the
Dratio = h correlations. It is important to note that the factors are
Do
without units. Thus, the units that were presented in Section
P
Pratio = I.A remain unchanged and are not repeated here.
Pcrit (7)
ρl
Prior to discussing the swirl tape factors, it is important
Ja = − χ sub to explain the term “swirl tape twist ratio”. This defining
ρv
characteristic of a swirl tape insert is the tape’s twist ratio.
− Cp ∆Tsub The twist ratio is defined as the number of tube inner
χ sub =
H fg diameters per the pitch length for 180° rotation of the tape.
1. Forced Convection. Sieder-Tate is modified as:
Cp = isobaric specific heat (J/kg-°C)
éæ k ö æµ ö ù
[ ( )] (9)
0.14
D0 = reference inner diameter (0.0127 m)
hsw = êç ÷ 0.027 Re 0.8 Pr 1/ 3 ç b ÷ ú ⋅ 142. 2.26 ⋅ Y − 0.248
Dh = hydraulic diameter of cooling channel (m) êè D h ø è µw ø ú
ë û
fo = Fanning friction factor
G = the mass flux (kg/m2-s)
Hf g = latent heat of vaporization (J/kg) hSW = swirl tape heat transfer coefficient (W/cm2)
Ja = Jakob number hbt = bare tube heat transfer coefficient (W/cm2)
P = water pressure (MPa) Y = swirl tape twist ratio
Pcrit = critical pressure of water (22.089 MPa) 2. Boiling Incipience. Same.

Dl = density of liquid bulk (kg/m3) 3. Partially Developed Nucleate Boiling. Same.

Dv = density of vapor at the liquid bulk temperature 4. Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling. Same..
(kg/m3) 5. Critical Heat Flux. The modified Tong-75 is:
)Tsub = degree of subcooling, Tsat - Tb (°C)
Xsub = quality of subcooled liquid bulk [
Φ CHF = 0.23 f sw GH fg 1 + 0.00216 Pratio
1.8
Re 0sw.5 Ja ] (10)
MCHF = critical heat flux (W/m ) 2

6. Transition Boiling. The Marshall-98 [14]

[ ]
correlation was selected because it was the only published
f sw = f o 0.95 2.75Y − 0.406
correlation[15][16][17][18][19] that demonstrated agreement
− 0.6
with data from fusion-relevant experiments. It is: fo = 8.0 Re sw 0.32
Dratio , sw
Dsw
Dratio,sw =
− 0.23 Do
é T − Tsat ù
Φ TB = Φ CHF ê w ú (8) é δD 2 ù (11)
ë TCHF − Tsat û ê − δD ú
Dsw = 4⋅ ê 4 ú
ê δD − δ + D ú
êë 2 úû
MCHF= critical heat flux (MW/m2) GDsw
Re sw =
MTB = transition boiling heat flux (MW/m2) µb

TCHF= wall temperature at local CHF (°C)

Tsat = saturation temperature at liquid bulk pressure D0 = reference inner diameter (0.0127 m)
(°C) Dsw = swirl tape tube modified-diameter (m)
Tw = wall temperature (°C) fsw = swirl tape tube modified friction factor
B. Swirl Tape Mockup Resw = swirl tape tube modified Reynolds number
When the cooling channel features a swirl tape insert, Y = swirl tape twist ratio
swirl tape factors must be applied to the previously described 6. Transition Boiling. Same.
heat transfer correlations that were originally defined for bare
III. COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Data for two prototypical divertor channels were
published by Marshall in 1998. He used a rastered electron
beam to generate one-sided heating of oxygen-free, high-
conductivity copper (OFHC-Cu) square monoblock mockups
that were water-cooled. One mockup featured a bare coolant
channel and the other featured a swirl tape with a twist ratio
of 2. The inlet water conditions were chosen to coincide with
the design specification of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor. The data from these experiments were
used to validate the predictions of the proposed model.
The experimental data were thermocouple temperatures
that were located 0.6 mm beneath the heated surface of the
two mockups. However, the developed heat transfer model
predicts heat transfer coefficients, heat fluxes, and
temperatures at the wetted perimeter of the coolant channel.
In order to calculate the corresponding thermal temperatures
of the mockup, finite element analyses (FEAs) were required.
These FEAs were accomplished through the use of the
commercially available ABAQUS software [20]. ABAQUS
was used to perform transient thermal analyses using a non-
symmetric Jacobian matrix and the Petrov-Galerkin method
of discretization to analyze the heat transfer process by
solving the basic Green and Naghdi energy balance [5].
Since ABAQUS uses the finite volume method of the energy
balance, energy is automatically conserved both locally and
globally. The evolution of the wetted perimeter temperature
during the FEA was governed by the two-dimensional form
of Fourier’s law of heat conduction in cylindrical coordinates
[21][22].
For each of the mockups, an individual finite element
mesh (FEM) was created. These FEMs were constructed to
be as close as possible to the physical mockups. For the bare
channel mockup, the FEM had a heated width of 15.7 mm
and a coolant channel inner diameter (ID) of 7.7 mm. For the
swirl tape mockup, the FEM had a heated width of 15.7 mm
and an ID of 7.3 mm. The mockups’ ID differed simply
because of the machining process. Both FEMs used 2619
nodes and 770 elements to model the 2 cm2 cross-sectional
area of the mockups.
To generate the FEA-predicted temperatures, the inlet
water conditions of the experiments were used with the heat
transfer model to create a Nukiyama curve. The heat fluxes,
heat transfer coefficients, and wall temperatures from this
curve were used in the FEA to predict heat transfer at the
wetted perimeter for the incident heat fluxes of the
experiments. Temperatures at the FEM nodes that
corresponded to the physical location of the mockups’
thermocouples were used for comparison with the
experimentally measured temperatures. The results of the
comparison are presented below.
A. Bare Channel Mockup
Figure 2 shows the comparison between the FEA-
predicted and experimentally-measured temperatures. The
listed water parameter are at the inlet while Hlength and Hwidth
are the heated length and width, respectively. Figure 3
presents the model-predicted Nukiyama curve.
B. Swirl Tape Mockup
Figure 4 shows the comparison between the FEA-
predicted and experimentally-measured temperatures. The
listed water parameter are at the inlet while Hlength and Hwidth
are the heated length and width, respectively. Figure 5
presents the model-predicted Nukiyama curve.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Heat Transfer Model
Figures 2 and 4 show that the developed heat transfer
model does an excellent job of matching the experimental
data in all observed regimes of heat transfer. There are three
noteworthy conclusions to be drawn from the two figures.
Firstly, the successful application of the heat transfer
correlations did not require any correction factors in response
to the one-sided heating. This is due to the wall temperature
being a function of the angular position around the wetted
perimeter and the FEA correspondingly calculating
individual heat transfer properties for each node
encompassing the wetted perimeter. Second, the model
works equally well for both the bare channel and the swirl
tape mockups. This is attributed to the optimum choice of
correlations that were created using physical properties. The
third noteworthy point is the performance of the model at the
local CHF and in the transition boiling regime. As of the
writing of this paper, there is no other existing model that has
demonstrated equally accurate predictions at and above the
local CHF.
Figures 3 and 5 present the predicted Nukiyama curves
based on the chosen correlations. Prior to the local CHF, the
curves are similar to those that have been previously
published in fusion-related heat transfer studies. Above the
local CHF, it was only required to model the transition
boiling regime. This was based on the assumption that the
maximum achievable temperature at the wetted perimeter of
the OFHC-Cu would be too low to establish wide-spread and
steady-state film boiling. This is a benefit of the non-uniform
heat flux distribution at the wetted perimeter that is caused by
the one-sided heating.
B. FILM-2000 Software
The correct application of the developed model requires
an intimate integration of the selected heat transfer
correlations. For example, the transition from one regime of
heat transfer to the subsequent regime was accomplished with
a maximum flux difference of 0.005 W/cm2. Such stringent
tolerances are required for an accurate representation of the
Nukiyama curve.
 800
Pressure MPa 1 Thermocouple
700 Temperature C 70 Predicted
Velocity m/s 1
600 ID mm 7.7
Hlength mm 40
Temperature (C)

500
Hwidth mm 15.7
400 Y 0

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2
Incident Heat Flux ( MW/m )

Figure 2: Experimental and predicted thermocouple temperatures for bare channel

mockup.

7
Wall Heat Flux ( MW/m2 )

4 Pressure MPa 1
Temperature C 70
3 Velocity m/s 1
ID mm 7.7
2 Length mm 40
heated

1 Widthheated mm 15.7
Y 0
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Wall Temperature (C)

Figure 3: Predicted Nukiyama curve for bare channel mockup.

 800
Pressure MPa 1
700 Temperature C 70
Velocity m/s 1 Thermocouple
600 ID mm 7.3 Predicted
H mm 30
length
Temperature (C)

500
Hwidth mm 15.7
400 Y 2

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
2
Incident Heat Flux ( MW/m )

Figure 4: Experimental and predicted thermocouple temperatures for swirl tape mockup.

22
20
18
Wall Heat Flux ( MW/m )

16
2

14
12
10 Pressure MPa 1
Temperature C 70
8
Velocity m/s 1
6 ID mm 7.3
Lengthheated mm 30
4
Widthheated mm 15.7
2
Y 2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Wall Temperature (C)

Figure 5: Predicted Nukiyama curve for swirl tape mockup.

To assist the thermal engineer apply the developed model, a
Microsoft Windows-based software program has been
created. This program accepts input from the user and
produces realtime plots and ASCII data files of the predicted
heat transfer properties. The program is available at
http://film2000.free.fr.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A physical model has been developed for predicting the
heat transfer properties of divertor channels that are one-
sided heated and water-cooled. The model includes all
regimes of the Nukiyama curve, minus film boiling, and has
exhibited excellent agreement with fusion-specific
experimental data. The model is especially noteworthy
because it works equally well with bare channel and swirl
tape mockups. Based on this observation, the model is
considered as an excellent heat transfer prediction tool for the
thermalhydraulics requirements of the fusion community.
REFERENCES
1. S. Nukiyama, “Maximum and Minimum Values of Heat Transmitted
from Metal to Boiling Water Under Atmospheric Pressure,” Journal of the
Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers, 37, pg 367 (1934).
2. E. N. Sieder and G. E. Tate, “Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of Liquids
in Tubes,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 28, 12, pgs. 1429-1435
(1936).
3. J. Schlosser and J. Boscary, Final Report: PDT 2.4 Task. Manufacture
and Tests of Divertor Samples and Mock-ups: Thermalhydraulic Tests on
Divertor Targets Using Swirl Tubes, CEA-Cadarache Report P/Co 94/03
(1994).
4. J. Schlosser and J. Boscary, “Thermalhydraulic Tests at NET/ITER
Relevant Conditions on Divertor Targets Using Swirl Tubes,” Proceedings
of the 6th International Conference on Nuclear Reactor Thermalhydraulics,
pgs. 815-824, Grenoble, France (1993).
5. H. Kinoshita and T. Yoshida, “Study on the Mechanism of Critical Heat
Flux Enhancement for Subcooled Flow Boiling in a Tube with Internal
Twisted Tape under Nonuniform Heating Conditions,” Heat Transfer -
Japanese Research, 25, 5, pgs. 293-307 (1996).
6. T. D. Marshall, R. D. Watson, J. M. McDonald, and D. L. Youchison,
"Post-Critical Heat Flux Behavior of a Prototypical ITER Divertor
Mockup," Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Nuclear
Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics, Saratoga Springs, NY (1995).
7. J. Schlosser, Design Task (D 67) - Update of EC Thermalhydraulic
Database: Thermalhydraulic Correlations for ITER High Heat Flux
Components, CEA-Cadarache, Report P/Co 96 (1996).
8. A. E. Bergles and W. M. Rohsenow, "The Determination of Forced
Convection Surface Boiling Heat Transfer," Transactions of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Series C, 86, pgs. 365-372 (1964).
9. E. J. Davis and G. H. Anderson, "The Incipience of Nucleate Boiling in
Forced Convection Flow," Transactions of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, 12, 4, pgs. 774-780 (1966).
10. M. Araki, M. Ogawa, T. Kunugi, S. Ikeda, K. Satoh, and S. Suzuki,
"Experiment on Heat Transfer of Smooth and Swirl Tubes Under One-Sided
Heating Conditions," International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 39,
14, pgs. 3045-3055 (1996).
11. L. S. Tong, “A Phenomenological Study of Critical Heat Flux,”
Proceedings of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers - American
Society of Mechanical Engineers Heat Transfer Conference, San Francisco,
California, ASME Paper 75-HT-68 (1975).
12. S. T. Yin, A. Cardella, A. H. Abdelmessih, Z. Jin, and B. F. Bromley,
“Assessment of a Heat Transfer Correlations Package for Water-Cooled
Plasma-Facing Components in fusion Reactors," Proceedings of the 5th
Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah
(1992).
13. J. A. Koski, A. G. Beattie, J. B. Whitley, and C. D. Croessman,
“Experimental Verification of Subcooled flow Boiling for Tokamak Pump
Limiter Designs,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, paper 87-
HT-45 (1987).
14. J. A. Koski, R. D. Watson, A. M. Hassanein, P. L. Goranson, and J. C.
Salmonson, “Thermal-Hydraulic Design Issues and Analysis for the ITER
Divertor,” Fusion Technology, 19, pgs. 1729 - 1735 (1991).
15. T. D. Marshall, Experimental Examination of the Post-Critical Heat
Flux and Loss of Flow Accident Phenomena for Prototypical ITER
Divertor Channels, Doctoral Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy,
New York (1998).
16. D. C. Groeneveld, S. C. Cheng, L. K. H. Leung, and C. Nguyen,
“Computation of Single and Two-Phase Heat Transfer Rates Suitable for
Water-Cooled Tubes and Subchannels,” Nuclear Engineering and Design,
114, pgs. 61-77 (1989).
17. S. Grigoriev and V. Divavin, “Cardinal Features of About Critical
Temperature State Calculation for the Divertor Elements at One-Side Heat
Loading”, Proceedings of the ITER Thermal-Hydraulic Technical Meeting,
Focus: High Heat Flux Cooling, JET, Abingdon, United Kingdom (1996).
18. D. Schroeder-Richter, “Analytical Modeling of Complete Nukiyama
Curves Corresponding to Expected Low Void Fraction at High Subcooling
and Flow Rate,” Fusion Technology, 29, pgs. 468-486 (1996).
19. H. S. Ragheb, S. C. Cheng, and D. C. Groeneveld, “Observations in
Transition Boiling of Subcooled Water Under Forced Convective
Conditions,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 24, 7, pgs.
1127-1137 (1981).
20. P. Weber and K. Johannsen, “Temperature-Controlled Measurement of
Boiling Curves for Forced Upflow of Subcooled Water in a Circular tube at
0.1 to 1 MPa,” Heat Transfer Equipment Fundamentals, Design,
Applications, and Operating Problems, ed. R. K. Shah, ASME HTD-Vol.
108, proceedings of the 1989 National Heat Transfer Conference,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pgs. 13-21 (1989).
21. ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual, Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen,
Incorporated, Pawtucket, Rhode Island (1998).
22. S. L. Milora, S. K. Combs, and C. A. Foster, “A Numerical Model for
Swirl Flow Cooling in High-Heat-Flux Particle Beam Targets and the
Design of a Swirl-Flow-Based Plasma Limiter,” Nuclear Engineering and
Design, 3, pgs. 301-308 (1986).