4.7 Article

Confined jet array impingement boiling of subcooled aqueous ethylene glycol solution

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2014.06.013

关键词

Aqueous ethylene glycol solution; Confined; Jet impingement; Boiling; Critical heat flux

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51376129]
  2. Shanghai Pujiang Program [13PJD019]
  3. Shanghai Academy of Space Technology [USCAST2012-03]
  4. Shanghai Jiao Tong University [USCAST2012-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A closed-loop experimental setup was built to study the confined jet array impingement boiling of 43% mass concentration aqueous ethylene glycol solution at low jet velocities and large degree of subcoolings. A 20 mm x 40 mm rectangular thin metal film with thickness of 0.03 mm was used as the heating surface. The in-line jet array had an orifice diameter d = 1 mm, a dimensionless jet-to-jet spacing S/d = 5 or 4, and a dimensionless jet-to-target spacing H/d = 1, 15 or 3. Experiments were performed at atmospheric pressure with the saturation temperature of 106 degrees C, jet velocities of 02 m/s, 031 m/s and 0.5 m/s, and liquid subcoolings of 36 degrees C, 46 degrees C and 56 degrees C. It is found that the heat transfer coefficient in the nucleate boiling regime at first increases with the increase of heat flux and then starts to decrease before the critical heat flux (CHF). Jet velocity and jet-to-target spacing have little effects on heat transfer coefficient in the nucleate boiling dominant regime, while subcooling and jet-to-jet spacing play important roles. Not only the jet velocity but also the liquid subcooling has great influences on the boiling inception and CHF. There exists an optimal jet-to-target spacing to achieve the maximum CHF because of the tradeoff between the breakup and confinement (or expel) of vapor bubbles. For the same flow rate, S/d = 5 has a higher heat transfer coefficient and CHF than S/d = 4. (C) 2014 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