4.7 Article

Experimental investigations of thermal and flow characteristics of curved trapezoidal winglet type vortex generators

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 241-248

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.11.024

关键词

Curved trapezoidal winglet; Vortex generator; Heat transfer enhancement; Flow resistance; Experiment

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [09MG25]
  2. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20070079018]
  3. Beijing Municipality Key Lab of Heating, Gas Supply, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Engineering [KF200708]
  4. Research Creation Found for Electric Power Youth of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The performance of a pair of new vortex generators - curved trapezoidal winglet (CTW) has been experimentally investigated and compared with traditional vortex generators - rectangular winglet, trapezoidal winglet and delta winglet using dimensionless factors j/j(0), f/f(0) and R = (j/j(0))/(f/f(0)). The results showed that delta winglet pair is the best in laminar and transitional flow region, while curved trapezoidal winglet pair (CTWP) has the best thermohydraulic performance in fully turbulent region due to the streamlined configuration and then the low pressure drop, which indicates the advantages of using this kind of vortex generators for heat transfer enhancement. Parametric study on CTWP showed that smaller attack angle (beta = 0 degrees = and 15 degrees), larger curvature (b/a = 1/2) and larger angle of inclination (alpha = 20 degrees) gives better thermohydraulic performance under the present conditions. An appropriate spacing between the leading edges of a pair of CTW VG should be considered for different flow regions. In addition, double rows of CTWP do not show better thermohydraulic performance due to the larger pressure drop and the spacing between the two rows of CTWP should also be optimized. (C) 2011 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