4.7 Article

An experimental and numerical study on the laminar heat transfer and flow characteristics of a circular tube fitted with multiple conical strips inserts

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.10.035

关键词

Multiple conical strips inserts; Laminar flow; Multiple longitudinal vortexes; Heat transfer enhancement; Stereoscopic-PIV experiment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51736004, 51376069]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China Youth Project [51606073]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, numerical simulations on the flow structures and heat transfer enhancement of laminar flow in a heat exchanger tube fitted with multiple conical strips inserts have been carried out. And stereoscopic particle image velocimetry (SPIV) measurements on the flow structures have been conducted to verify the numerical results. Both the experimental and numerical results show that multiple longitudinal vortexes are generated in tube, and the flow structures obtained by simulations agreed well with those of the PIV measurements. Numerical results show that heat transfer and friction factor were respectively enhanced by approximately 2.54-7.63 and 2.40-28.74 times compared to the plain tube, and the overall heat transfer performance (performance ratio R3) was located in the range of 1.23-6.05. Moreover, effects of the number of conical strips (n), central angle (alpha), slant angle (theta) and the pitch (p) have been investigated. It is found that both the heat transfer rate and flow resistance increase with the increasing number of conical strips, central angle and the decreasing pitch, and they both increase first and then decrease with the increase of slant angle. Compared with the previous published works, the tube with multiple conical strips inserts can obtain a moderate heat transfer and low flow resistance, and thus achieve a high overall heat transfer performance. (C) 2017 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