4.7 Article

Numerical simulation of evaporation phenomena and heat transfer of liquid Hydrocarbon in a microtube

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2021.121734

关键词

Flow boiling; Heat transfer; evaporating efficiency; microtube; Pressure drop fluctuation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50906004]
  2. Beijing Higher Education Young Elite Teacher Project [YETP1176]
  3. Basic Research Foundation of Beijing Institute of Technology [20130142009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that flow boiling of liquid n-heptane in a microtube under different flow rates and thermal gradients can affect heat transfer efficiency and pressure drop oscillation magnitude.
Evaporation and heat transfer is the key process that affects the performance of the portable liquid fuel system. The flow boiling of liquid n-heptane is studied numerically in a 0.2 mm microtube under non-uniform boundary conditions. At low fuel flow rate (5 mu l/min) and low thermal gradient, the average value of heat transfer coefficient was 40 0 0 W/m(2)-K, mean evaporation efficiency was 0.80, and low pressure drop oscillations of magnitude 600 Pa were observed. In addition, the flow pattern was stable with a dynamic liquid-vapor interface. At high flow rate (70 mu l/min), the average value of heat transfer co-efficient and pressure drop oscillations magnitude increases to 16000 W/m(2)-K and 2500 Pa respectively, whereas mean evaporation efficiency decreases to 0.65. The diameter and intensity of the nucleate bubble and the liquid droplets depends on flow rate and thermal gradients. At low fuel flow rate, high frequency low magnitude pressure drop fluctuation was obtained while at high low frequency high magnitude pressure drop fluctuation was obtained. Numerical calculations are also performed under several wall temperature profiles of the same temperature gradients that have shown smaller effect on evaporation efficiency. (c) 2021 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