4.5 Article

Hydrodynamics and thermal performance of turbulent falling films through horizontal tube bundles

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2022.104299

关键词

Turbulent falling film; Film thickness; Heat transfer coefficient; Computational fluid dynamics; Tube bundle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study numerically investigates the hydrodynamics and thermal performance of turbulent falling films in horizontal tube bundles. It finds that the Standard k-omega model is suitable for reproducing the heat transfer characteristics of turbulent falling films, and that different bundle arrangements and flow regimes have varying effects on the heat transfer coefficient.
Turbulent falling films are commonly encountered in the practical operations of most falling film applications, but the relevant numerical study is very scarce. The hydrodynamics and thermal performance of falling films in horizontal tube bundles under the turbulent regime were numerically investigated in this study. The calculation ranges are: film Reynolds number from 3505 to 8034, heat flux of 47.3 kWm(-2), inlet liquid temperature of 46 degrees C, tube diameter of 19.0 mm and liquid distributor height of 6.4 mm. Based on the results of the present numerical model, the Standard k-omega model is more suitable in reproducing the falling film heat transfer profile, as the present numerical model accurately predicted the turbulent falling film heat transfer characteristics. There are various hydrodynamics depending on the bundle arrangement and flow regime, including splashing, bridging, gas entrainment, Coanda effect, and liquid film thickness. The triangular bundle provides the highest heat transfer coefficient, but the square bundle provides the poorest one, and the square and rotated-triangular tube bundles behave the largest and smallest bundle effect, respectively. The bundle effect is generally independent of film Reynolds number, liquid feeder height and tube spacing.

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

4.5
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