4.4 Article

Entropy generation investigation of nanofluid flow in the ribbed rectangular channel under magnetic field

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s40430-021-03292-y

关键词

Ag-water nanofluid; Ribbed rectangular channel; Nusselt number; Entropy generation; Critical Reynolds number

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the heat transfer and fluid flow parameters of Ag-water nanofluid through a ribbed rectangular channel in the presence of a magnetic field. The effects of Reynolds numbers, Hartmann numbers, and nanofluid volume fractions on Nusselt numbers, entropy generation, and velocity profiles were analyzed. The results showed a critical Reynolds number for minimum entropy generation and enhanced thermal performance with increasing Reynolds number.
The main objective of this paper is to investigate parameters of heat transfer and fluid flow of Ag-water nanofluid through a ribbed rectangular channel in the presence of a magnetic field. The walls of the channel are exposed to constant heat flux. The study is carried out at four different Reynolds numbers (10 < Re < 500). Also, the Hartmann numbers and nanofluid volume fractions are changed in the range of 0-200 and 0-0.04, respectively. The effect of variation of Reynolds numbers, Hartmann numbers, and nanofluid volume fraction is analyzed on the local Nusselt number, average Nusselt number, entropy generation, and profiles of velocity. The result indicated that there is a critical Reynolds number that leads to minimum entropy generation at all volume fractions of nanoparticles and Hartmann numbers. At higher Hartmann numbers, velocity profiles become flattened, and the heat transfer increased. Thermal performance is approximately enhanced three times with the Reynolds number increase. At high Reynolds numbers, magnetic field force is caused the total entropy generation rate's increase to five times. But at low Reynolds numbers, magnetic field force has not sensible effect on total entropy generation rate.

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

4.4
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