4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Three-dimensional numerical study and field synergy principle analysis of wavy fin heat exchangers with elliptic tubes

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEAT AND FLUID FLOW
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 1531-1544

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2007.02.001

关键词

wavy fin; elliptic tube heat exchanger; field synergy principle; numerical simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three dimensional numerical studies were performed for laminar heat transfer and fluid flow characteristics of wavy fin heat exchangers with elliptic/circular tubes by body-fitted coordinates system. The simulation results of circular tube were compared with the experiment data, then circular and elliptic (e = b/a = 0.6) arrangements with the same minimum flow cross-sectional area were compared. A max relative heat transfer gain of up to 30% is observed in the elliptic arrangement, and corresponding friction factor only increased by about 10%. The effects of five factors on wavy fin and elliptic tube heat exchangers were examined: Reynolds number (based on the smaller ellipse axis, 500 similar to 4000), eccentricity (b/a, 0.6 similar to 1.0), fin pitch (F-b/2b, 0.05 similar to 0.4), fin thickness (F-t/2b, 0.006 similar to 0.04) and tube spanwise pitch (S-1/2b, 1.0 similar to 2.0). The results show that with the increasing of Reynolds number and fin thickness, decreasing of the eccentricity and spanwise tube pitch, the heat transfer of the finned tube bank are enhanced with some penalty in pressure drop. There is an optimum fin pitch (F-b/2b = 0.1) for heat transfer, but friction factor always decreases with increase of fin pitch. And when F,12b is larger than 0.25, it has little effects on heat transfer and pressure drop. The results were also analyzed from the view point of field synergy principle. It was found that the effects of the five factors on the heat transfer performance can be well described by the field synergy principle. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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