4.7 Article

Mach number and energy loss analysis inside multi-stage Tesla valves for hydrogen decompression

期刊

ENERGY
卷 179, 期 -, 页码 647-654

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.064

关键词

Hydrogen decompression; Multi-stage Tesla valve; Mach number; Energy loss; Computational fluid dynamics

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51805470]
  2. Youth Funds of the State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power and Mechatronic Systems (Zhejiang University) [SKLoFP-QN-1801]
  3. Research Project of State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration [MSV201902]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018QNA4013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multi-stage Tesla valves in the reversed flow state can be applied during the hydrogen decompression process between the high pressure hydrogen storage vessel and the fuel cell. Under high-pressure turbulent hydrogen flow, severe aerodynamic noise may be caused and large energy loss inside Tesla valves may be generated, which can cause uncomfortable noise in vehicles. In this paper, the valve stage number and the pressure ratio between the inlet and the outlet are analyzed to investigate the possibility of the occurrence of aerodynamic noise and energy loss inside Tesla valves, and Mach number, turbulent dissipation rate, and exergy loss are used and evaluated as the criterion. The results show that both Mach number and exergy loss increase with the increasing of pressure ratio, but with the decrease of valve stage number, Mach number increases and exergy loss decreases. In addition, large turbulent dissipation rate at each valve stage appears near the bifurcation and the confluence between the straight channel and the bend channel of multi-stage Tesla valves. The correlation between the valve stage number, the pressure ratio, and the maximum Mach number is fitted, which can be used to estimate the possibility of the occurrence of aerodynamic noise. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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