4.7 Article

Heat transfer and flow characteristics of intermittent oscillating flow in tube

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 225, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.120233

关键词

Stirling cycle; Heat transfer; Intermittent motion; Oscillating flow; Sinusoidal motion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the heat transfer and flow characteristics of intermittent oscillating flow in a tube were numerically investigated. The results showed that compared to sinusoidal oscillating flow, the total heat transfer coefficient was 14.6% lower and the pressure drop was 0.83% higher in intermittent oscillating flow. The pressure drop curves were similar in both flows, and the velocity distributions were also comparable.
Motions of piston and displacer in ideal Stirling cycle is non-sinusoidal and rise-dwell-fall-dwell. However, heat transfer and flow characteristics of present oscillating flow are based on sinusoidal motions. In this work, heat transfer and flow characteristics of intermittent oscillating flow with intermittent ratio = 1 in tube were numerically studied. The model was firstly validated based on literature's empirical equations for sinusoidal oscillating flow. Then, heat transfer and flow characteristics of intermittent and sinusoidal oscillating flows were simulated and compared. The simulation results showed that the total heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop in intermittent oscillating flow were 14.6% lower and 0.83% higher respectively compared to those in sinusoidal oscillating flow. The curves of pressure drop were nearly the same in sinusoidal and intermittent oscillating flows with removal of stagnation periods. Besides, velocity distributions in two oscillating flows were also investigated. The simulation results showed that the velocity loop in two oscillating flows occurred at the same time and the changing amplitudes of wall's velocity over central axis's velocity in velocity loop were nearly the same.

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