4.3 Article

Theoretical analysis and numerical simulation study on the structural optimization of conical channels in the center tube of a centrifugal radial bed

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02726351.2023.2271430

关键词

Centrifugal radial bed; numerical simulation; structural optimization; conical channel; inhomogeneity indices

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different design methods for conical channels were developed to improve the uniformities of the flow distributions in radial beds. The traditional linear method, improved linear method, and improved multi-segment linear method showed the lowest inhomogeneity indices in the flow fields.
To improve the uniformities of the flow distributions in radial beds, different design methods for conical channels were developed, that is, proportional method, traditional linear method for minimizing the pressure difference between two ends of the channel, newly proposed improved linear method for minimizing the pressure axial variation in the whole channel, and improved multi-segment linear method that divide the channel into multi-segments with different inclination angles. The flow fields under different design methods and gas flow rates are then investigated by numerical simulation. The designation of the angle of the conical channel is particularly significant. Compared to the original structure, the proportional method has difficulty obtaining a proper inclination angle, whose inhomogeneity indices of the distributions of pressure drop eta(p) and gas velocity eta(v) may increase or decrease. The traditional linear method has lower inhomogeneity indices, for example, eta(v) will decrease by >= 7.02%, which denotes more uniform flow distributions, while the improved linear and multi-stage linear methods have the lowest inhomogeneity indices, for example, eta(v) will decrease by >= 12.12 and 13.60%, respectively. Besides, the latter two methods have good adaptability and robustness to fluctuations in the gas flow rate. [GRAPHICS] .

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

4.3
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