4.6 Article

Experimental and numerical investigation of convection heat transfer in a rectangular channel with angled ribs

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL THERMAL AND FLUID SCIENCE
Volume 30, Issue 6, Pages 513-521

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2005.09.007

Keywords

experiment; numerical simulation; heat transfer; ribs; spacing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Forced convection heat transfer of air in a rectangular channel with 45 degrees ribs on one wall was investigated experimentally and numerically. The stainless steel test section was 39.3 mm x 39.3 mm x 4 mm and the ribs were 1 mm x 0.8 mm with 4 mm between ribs. The tests investigated the effects of air mass flow rate on the convection heat transfer enhancement with the ribs. Comparisons between the experimental and numerical results showed that the SST k-omega turbulence model was more suitable for the convection heat transfer in such channels than the RNG k-epsilon turbulence model. Other rectangular channels with different ribs angles and different spacings between ribs on the wall were investigated using the CFD code FLUENT6.1 with the SST k-omega turbulence model. The numerical model was 40 mm x 10 mm x 4 mm and the ribs were 1 mm x 1 mm with angles of 90 degrees, 60 degrees, 45 degrees, 30 degrees, 20 degrees, 10 degrees and 0 degrees. The numerical results indicate that the heat transfer coefficients were largest with the 60 degrees ribs, but the channel with the 20 degrees ribs had the best overall thermal/hydraulic performance considering the heat transfer and the pressure drop when the spacing between ribs was 4 mm. The average heat transfer coefficients increase with increasing mass flow rates and decreasing the spacings. The rectangular channel with 20 degrees ribs with 1-2 mm spacing ribs had the best overall thermal/hydraulic performance. (C) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available