4.7 Article

Entropy generation analysis for laminar thermal augmentation with conical strip inserts in horizontal circular tubes

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCES
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 201-214

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2014.10.003

关键词

Entropy generation analysis; Thermal augmentation; Thermo-hydraulic performance; Laminar flow; Conical strip inserts; Numerical simulation

资金

  1. National Key Basic Research Development Program of China [2013CB228302]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51036003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our previous investigations demonstrated that conical strip inserts have good thermo-hydraulic performances based on evaluation criteria of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The present work is dedicated to further analyze the performances of these inserts from a viewpoint of entropy generation. Effects of alignment method and geometrical parameters on entropy generations of laminar heat transfer in the tubular flow are investigated. Local entropy generations are presented for discussion. Results show that entropy generation rates caused by non-staggered strips are about 81.1% that of staggered alignment, while the heat transfer rates and PECs of the former are about 33.8% and 13.5% larger than the latter counterparts, respectively. Moreover, the entropy generation rate (and thus irreversible loss) caused by heat transfer process overwhelms the counterpart by viscous flow. The total entropy generation number of enhanced tube, ranging between 0.0657 and 0.0975, is most sensitive to geometry angle with a maximum averaged relative variation of 32.2%. Its variation trend with Re is concave with a pit at Re = similar to 600. In brief, non-staggered inserts with a larger geometry angle and smaller strip-wall gap and pitch, facilitate a better thermo-hydraulic performance at Re = similar to 600 from the viewpoint of exergy loss reduction. (C) 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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