4.7 Article

Effect of vortex promoter shape on heat transfer in MHD duct flow with axial magnetic field

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCES
Volume 134, Issue -, Pages 453-464

Publisher

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2018.06.012

Keywords

Magnetohydrodynamics; Channel flow; Triangular cylinder; Quasi-two-dimensional model; Heat transfer

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [DP150102920]
  2. Malaysia Ministry of Education
  3. Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
  4. Faculty of Engineering International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (FEIPRS) from the Faculty of Engineering, Monash University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The heat transfer from the side-wall of a duct through which an electrically conducting fluid flows within a strong transverse magnetic field is numerically investigated using high-resolution numerical simulation. Parameter ranges considered are 0 <= H alpha <= 2400 and 100 <= Re <= 3000 for a constant blockage ratio of 1/4. The gain in the heat transfer using obstacles of different geometric shapes are compared. For H alpha = 320, a maximum heat transfer enhancement of 78% is obtained when using the square cylinder at a modes Re = 1000, while the triangular cylinder outperformed the various other vortex promoter geometries at Re = 2000 yielding a 75% improvement.. However, at a higher Hartmann number of Ha = 2400, a maximum heat transfer augmentation of 16% and 40% is obtained for the triangular cylinder at Re = 1000 and 2000, respectively. This suggests that for a duct flow under the influence of a strong magnetic field, the triangular obstacle is a superior heat transfer promoter geometry compared to the square or circular cylinders. A further net power analysis reveals that the heat transfer enhancement dominates over the pumping power to produce net benefits for even a modest heat transfer enhancement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available