4.7 Article

Numerical investigation of the flow and heat transfer in tube with a concave generator

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2021.105276

关键词

Vortex generator; Enhanced heat transfer; Flow resistance; Vortex structure

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2019QNA29]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11802331]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared the heat transfer capacity of concave VG, convex VG, and trapezoidal VG, with concave VG found to have a more reasonable heat transfer capacity, enhancing heat transfer efficiency and reducing resistance loss. Nusselt number (Nu) has a strong correlation with volume averaged turbulent dissipation rate and wall shear stress, with a correlation coefficient of 0.935.
The installation of a vortex generator (VG) on the heat transfer surface is a common enhanced heat transfer technology. The vortex generator is used to induce the vortex to destroy the flow boundary layer, reduce the heat transfer resistance, and improve the efficiency of the heat exchange equipment. In the present study, a numerical investigation is performed to compare the heat transfer capacity of concave VG, convex VG and trapezoidal VG. Since the position of the vortex affects the heat transfer and the vortex generated by concave VG is closer to the wall, concave VG has a more reasonable heat transfer capacity. Flow characteristics and heat transfer enhancement of concave VGs with 65 different geometric parameters have been analyzed in a rectangular channel under steady flow conditions. It is concluded that the concave VG enhances the heat transfer and reduces the resistance loss. It should be indicated that the highest performance evaluation criteria (PEC) and the increment of PEC are 1.93 and 93%, respectively. Moreover, Nusselt number (Nu) has a strong correlation with volume averaged turbulent dissipation rate and wall shear stress and the correlation coefficient is 0.935.

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