4.5 Article

A minichannel aluminium tube heat exchanger - Part 1: Evaluation of single-phase heat transfer coefficients by the Wilson plot method

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2008.02.011

关键词

heat exchanger; minichannel; aluminium; experiment; heat transfer; water; refrigerated; flow; laminar; Nusselt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A prototype liquid-to-refrigerant heat exchanger was developed with the aim of minimizing the refrigerant charge in small systems. To allow correct calculation of the refrigerant side heat transfer, the heat exchanger was first tested for liquid-to-liquid (water-to-water) operation in order to determine the single-phase heat transfer performance. These single-phase tests are reported in this paper. The heat exchanger was made from extruded multiport aluminium tubes and was designed similar to a shell-and-tube heat exchanger. The heat transfer areas of the shell-side and tube-side were approximately 0.82 m(2) and 0.78 m(2), respectively. There were six rectangular-shaped parallel channels in a tube. The hydraulic diameter of the tube-side was 1.42 mm and of the shell-side 3.62 mm. Tests were conducted with varying water flow rates, temperature levels and heat fluxes on both the tube and shell sides at Reynolds numbers of approximately 170-6000 on the tube-side and 1000-5000 on the shell-side, respectively. The Wilson plot method was employed to investigate the heat transfer on both the shell and tube sides. In the Reynolds number range of 2300-6000, it was found that the Nusselt numbers agreed with those predicted by the Gnielinski correlation within +/- 5% accuracy. In the Reynolds number range of 170-1200 the Nusselt numbers gradually increased from 2.1 to 3.7. None of the previously reported correlations for laminar flow predicted the Nusselt numbers well in this range. The shell-side Nusselt numbers were found to be considerably higher than those predicted by correlations from the literature. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据