4.5 Article

Comparison of flow boiling pressure drop and heat transfer of R134a with low GWP alternative R1234ze(E) in a dimpled flat duct

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REFRIGERATION
卷 119, 期 -, 页码 165-174

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2020.07.012

关键词

R1234ze(E); Dimpled flat duct; Flow boiling; Pressure drop; Heat transfer

资金

  1. Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Center at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The low GWP (Global Warming Potential) refrigerant R1234ze(E) is a potential alternative of R134a. This study puts the emphasis on the comparison of the flow boiling pressure drop and heat transfer of R134a and R1234ze(E) in a dimpled flat duct. For the air-conditioning applications, the experiments are conducted at mass flux from 100 to 200 kg m(-2) s(-1) , saturation temperature from 5 to 15 degrees C, heat flux from 2.5 to 10 kW m(-2), and vapor quality from 0.1 to 0.95. The results show that the frictional pressure gradient of R1234ze(E) is 1.10 to 1.27 times that of R134a. The characteristics of the flow boiling heat transfer coefficient of R1234ze(E) are similar to R134a. The increasing flow boiling heat transfer coefficient with vapor quality in the tested range implies the convective evaporation dominates the heat transfer. It is also observed that the flow boiling heat transfer coefficient visibly increases with a rise in mass flux and decreases with the saturation temperature increment due to the increase in vapor to liquid density ratio. The enhancement effect of heat flux on the flow boiling heat transfer shows up at the highest value of 10 kW m(-2) only. The heat transfer coefficient ratio of R1234ze(E) to R134a increases from 0.89 to 1.20 with an increase in vapor quality. The comparison of frictional pressure gradient and heat transfer characteristics between R1234ze(E) and R134a has been discussed from the viewpoint of fluid properties. (C) 2020 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