4.7 Article

R410A and R32 condensation heat transfer and flow patterns inside horizontal micro-fin and 3-D enhanced tubes

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2023.106638

Keywords

Condensation; Enhanced heat transfer; Pressure drop; Performance evaluation; Flow pattern

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Micro-fin tube and 3-D enhanced tube have higher heat transfer coefficients compared to smooth tube. The micro-fin tube thins the condensate thickness and reduces thermal resistance. The 3-D enhanced tube promotes turbulence generation and droplet entrainment, improving heat transfer.
Micro-fin tube, 3-D enhanced tube and smooth tube with an inner diameter of 9.52 mm were used as test tubes to study the condensation heat transfer performance with R410A and R32 as the working fluids at different mass flow rates (150-400 kg/m2s) and vapor qualities (0.2-0.8). For R410A and R32, the heat transfer coefficient of the micro-fin tube is 2.0-2.2 times and 1.5-2.0 times that of the smooth tube, and the heat transfer coefficient of the 3-D enhanced tube is 1.4-1.5 times and 1.5-1.6 times that of the smooth tube, respectively. The micro-fin tube is effective in thinning the condensate thickness and reducing the thermal resistance. The 3-D enhanced tube promotes the generation of turbulence and droplet entrainment, which improves heat transfer of enhanced tubes. The heat transfer coefficient of R32 is greater than that of R410A due to its higher thermal conductivity, latent heat and specific heat capacity. The frictional pressure drop increases monotonically with the mass flow rate. Considering the increment in surface area and the additional pressure drop penalty, the performance evaluation factor of the enhanced tubes ranges from 0.9 to 1.4. The study presents flow pattern maps for smooth and enhanced tubes. Enhanced tubes promote the appearance of intermittent and annular flow.

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