4.7 Article

Two-phase mixed convection heat transfer and entropy generation analysis of a non-Newtonian nanofluid inside a cavity with internal rotating heater and cooler

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL SCIENCES
卷 151, 期 -, 页码 842-857

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.12.036

关键词

Two-phase nanofluid; Mixed convection; Non-newtonian; Entropy generation; Rotating cylinder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, mixed convection inside a square cavity filled with Cu-water nanofluid is simulated using the Eulerian two-phase mixture model. The base fluid is considered to be non-Newtonian and obeys from the power law. Two rotating cylinders are placed inside the heat exchanger and heat is transferred through the nanofluid from the hot cylinder to the cold one. In addition to the natural convection heat transfer inside the heat exchanger, rotation of the internal cylinders can provide forced convection heat transfer. The direction of rotation of cylinders can strengthen or weaken the natural convection effects in different regions, hence, four cases with various rotation directions for the cylinders are considered. The effects of changes in the value of imposed angular velocity (in terms of Richardson number), non-Newtonian power-law index, Rayleigh number and nanofluid volume fraction on both the heat transfer and entropy generation are discussed. The results have been illustrated that the shear-thinning or shear-thickening behavior of the non-Newtonian nanofluid can noticeably change the effect of forced convection on the heat transfer efficiency. Besides, regarding the values of Rayleigh number, Richardson number and non-Newtonian power-law index, the addition of nanoparticles into the non-Newtonian base fluid might adversely affect the heat transfer efficiency. In addition, to investigate irreversibilities, total entropy generation is discussed. It is indicated that shear-thinning nanofluids result in higher values of total entropy generation.

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

4.7
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