4.7 Article

A comprehensive second law analysis for a heat exchanger tube equipped with the rod inserted straight and twisted tape and using water/CuO nanofluid

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2022.107765

关键词

Water/CuO nanofluid; Twisted tape; Entropy generation; Exergy destruction; Second law efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study applied thermohydraulic performance and second law analysis using water/CuO nanofluid in a heat exchanger tube. Results showed that RITT cases outperformed RIST cases in terms of thermal performance, and the use of nanofluid had a significant impact on increasing second law efficiency.
Thermohydraulic performance and second law analysis was applied on the experimental results by using water/CuO nanofluid, and the rod inserted straight tape (RIST) and the rod inserted twisted tape (RITT) for a heat exchanger tube under constant heat flux and turbulent flow conditions. The experiments were conducted for the Reynolds number ranging from 5000 to 29,000, the nanofluid mass fraction of 0, 1.0 and 2.0%, the pitch ratios of the rods on the tapes (L/p) of 10, 20 and 40. The experimental results were comprehensively evaluated according to Nusselt number, friction factor, thermohydraulic performance criteria, entropy generation rate, Bejan number, entropy generation number, exergy destruction rate and second law efficiency. The results showed that although the RITT cases are superior for the thermal performance than the counterparts of the RIST, there was no significant influence by the cases of RITT and RIST on the second law efficiency due to greater frictional losses. However, the use of nanofluid contributes a significant influence on increasing the second law efficiency. As a conclusion, the highest thermohydraulic performance criteria of 1.377 and the highest second law efficiency of 0.439 was observed by the case of RITTL/p=40 and the nanofluid mass fraction of 2.0% at Reynolds number of 6572.

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