Numerical simulation of the heat transfer process in a corrugated tube
Numerical simulation of the heat transfer process in a corrugated tube
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2017.12.028
复制
发表时间：
2018-04
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Juan I. Corcoles-Tendero;J. Belmonte;A. Molina;J. A. Almendros-Ibáñez
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Juan I. Corcoles-Tendero;J. Belmonte;A. Molina;J. A. Almendros-Ibáñez
本文采用数值模拟的方法，分析了简支管中存在微扰时，微扰对传热和阻力系数的影响。在文献中的实验数据进行了验证的模拟。在四种雷诺数（15-40× 103）和两种普朗特数（2.9和4.3）下，对光滑波纹管和波纹管的湍流特性进行了比较。本文的主要新奇是进行3-D模拟，因为以前的一些研究使用类似的几何结构仅限于2-D分析。对于光滑管和波纹管，使用内径为18 mm、长度为6 m和壁厚为1 mm的不锈钢管。波纹管的波纹深度为0.43 mm，螺旋节距为15.86 mm。使用ANSYS ANSYS（v.17.0）进行网格划分，采用非结构化网格，在壁附近采用精细网格，以确保捕获层流粘性子层。因此，在建议的模拟中使用了具有近壁处理的k-ε（k− ε）湍流模型。使用两个网格进行网格敏感性分析。对波纹管的计算结果表明，数值模型预测的平均努塞尔数与实验值的最大相对误差为17%，范宁因子的误差小于9%。
This paper analyses the effect of spirally corrugation in a simple tube on the heat transferred and friction factor using numerical simulations. The simulations have been validated with experimental data available in the literature. The study compares the behaviour of both smooth and spirally corrugated tubes considering turbulent flow at four Reynolds numbers (15-40× 10 3) and two Prandtl numbers (2.9 and 4.3). The main novelty of this paper is to perform a 3-D simulation because some previous studies using similar geometry were restricted to a 2-D analysis. For the smooth and corrugated tubes, stainless steel tubes with an inner diameter of 18 mm, a length of 6 m and a wall thickness of 1 mm were used. The corrugated tube has a corrugation depth of 0.43 mm and a helical pitch of 15.86 mm. The meshing process was performed using ANSYS Workbench (v. 17.0) with an unstructured grid with a refined mesh near the wall to ensure that the laminar viscous sub-layer was captured. Hence, a k-epsilon (k− ε) turbulence model with a near-wall treatment was used in the proposed simulations. Two grids were used to perform a grid sensitivity analysis. The results for the corrugated tube indicate that the numerical model predicts an average Nusselt number within a maximum relative error of 17% compared with the experimental data, and the differences in the Fanning factor are lower than 9%.