4.7 Article

Investigation of thermal analysis and pressure drop in non-continuous helical baffle with different helix angles and hybrid nano-particles

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.csite.2022.102209

关键词

Helical baffle; Heat transfer; Hybrid Nanofluid; Finite volume method (FVM); Pressure drop

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the non-continuous helical baffles shell and tube heat exchanger was numerically modeled. The effects of different angles and intensities on heat transfer and pressure drop were investigated. The results showed that using a hybrid Nanofluid and specific helix angles can improve the thermal efficiency and heat transfer performance of the heat exchanger.
In this study, shell and tube heat exchanger with non-continuous helical baffles (NCHB-STHX) is modeled numerically. This heat exchanger has varied applications in different fields of science and industry. The ratio of heat transfer coefficient to pressure drop (HTC/Delta P) is obtained from different angles and intensities. Helix angles vary from 20 degrees to 40 degrees, mass flow rate amounts are 0.984, 1.33 and 1.685 kg/s, and hybrid Nanofluid alumina-Cu-water with three different intensities 0.33, 1, and 2% were tested individually. In addition, the results were compared with pure water. Reynolds number ranges are between 25000 and 31000, and the K-epsilon RNG model was chosen as the most suitable one. Results show that the heat transfer at beta = 20 degrees is maximum and the optimum pressure drop occurs at beta = 40 degrees. Also, the helix angle beta = 20 degrees, 2% intensity of hybrid Nanofluid alumina-Cu-water and 1.685 kg/s flow rate thermal efficiency is maximum for the helix angle. As the Reynolds number increases up to 80%, HTC rises to approximately 84%. On the other hand, it declines gradually as the helix angle raises nearly 50% when it comes to alumina-Cu-water Nanofluid. The ratio (HTC/Delta P) is at its highest and has a 6% improvement compared to the previous study.

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