4.7 Article

Numerical study and optimisation of the boiling of refrigerant in a vertical corrugated tube using vapour phase tracking

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2021.122116

关键词

-

资金

  1. KMUTT
  2. Research Chair Grant National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA)
  3. Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on numerical modelling of downward boiling of a refrigerant in a vertical corrugated tube with hot water flowing upward inside an outer tube. Optimization and vapor phase tracking methods are employed to improve heat transfer during the process. Structural optimization increases heat transfer rate by 11% and decreases friction factor by 9%. Varying corrugation depth results in slight increases followed by sudden decreases in average vapor quality.
The present study deals with the numerical modelling of the boiling of a refrigerant flowing downward in a vertical corrugated tube while hot water is flowing upward inside an outer tube. Considering the R-134a refrigerant, we employ optimisation and vapour phase tracking methods in an attempt to improve the heat transfer during the boiling process. The two-phase flow is simulated by a novel approach in which the changes in the vapour-liquid interface are tracked at each time step. Differential evolution is used to optimise the shape of the corrugations on the surface of the tube so as to achieve maximum heat transfer and minimum friction. Through this structural optimisation, the heat transfer rate can be enhanced by 11%, while the friction factor decreases by 9%. Furthermore, the findings show that, as the corrugation depth is varied, the average vapour quality increases slightly before suddenly decreasing. According to our findings, the Nusselt number can be increased by up to 12%. Furthermore, the results show that optimisation improves the average vapour quality by more than 10%. (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