4.7 Article

Theoretical analysis of thermal performance in a plate type liquid heat exchanger using various nanofluids based on LiBr solution

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 1020-1032

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.196

关键词

Plate heat exchanger (PHX); Nanofluid; Effectiveness; Heat transfer coefficient; Lithium bromide solution (LiBr-H2O)

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea [2013R1A1A2062072]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2013R1A1A2062072] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thermal properties of nanofluids containing nano-sized particles in the working fluid are superior to base fluid. In this study, the performance of a plate heat exchanger (PHX), with chevron angles 30 degrees/30 degrees and 60 degrees/60 degrees, is analyzed with various nanofluids based on LiBr solution as working fluid. The performance of the chevron PHX was analyzed with hot-side fluid mass flow rate, the overall heat transfer coefficient, effectiveness, and rate of the heat transfer were calculated. As a result, the performance was improved in the order of Fe2O3, CuO, Al2O3, TiO2, ZnO, SiO2, CNT, sequentially, at same volume concentration. The performance improvement of PHX was similar for both Fe2O3 and CuO nanofluid because their thermal properties are similar. Besides, the effect of performance improvement by nanofluids remarkably appeared in a 30 degrees/30 degrees chevron angle PHX. Considering the limitation concentration of dispersion stability for various nanofluids, the PHX performance improvement was in the order of Al2O3, TiO2, Fe2O3, CuO, CNT, SiO2. To improve chevron PHX performance, Al2O3 or TiO2 nanofluids have added advantages over other nanofluids. (C) 2016 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