Air to Liquid Heat Transfer Coefficient Experimental Comparation between Silicon Carbide and Glass Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers in a Pilot Plant Scale
Loading...
Date
2024-10-13
Authors
Horvát, Petr
Svěrák, Tomáš
0000-0002-8037-5325Advisor
Referee
Mark
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Altmetrics
Abstract
Instead of the expected 3.8–5.4% increase in the heat transfer coefficient due to the better thermal conductivity of silicon carbide tubes compared to glass tubes, the observed increase was 18–22% for 150–275kg·h1 airflow and 6kg·s1 propane-1,2-diol coolant in tubes. This additional 15–17% increase is probably due to local flow turbulisation due to the roughness of the sintered carbide of 4–10µm, which unfortunately also causes a 17–24% higher air pressure drop. The hand calculation model used underestimates the heat transfer coefficient by 2% to 10%, which is better than CHEMCAD 8 modeling results.
Instead of the expected 3.8–5.4% increase in the heat transfer coefficient due to the better thermal conductivity of silicon carbide tubes compared to glass tubes, the observed increase was 18–22% for 150–275kg·h1 airflow and 6kg·s1 propane-1,2-diol coolant in tubes. This additional 15–17% increase is probably due to local flow turbulisation due to the roughness of the sintered carbide of 4–10µm, which unfortunately also causes a 17–24% higher air pressure drop. The hand calculation model used underestimates the heat transfer coefficient by 2% to 10%, which is better than CHEMCAD 8 modeling results.
Instead of the expected 3.8–5.4% increase in the heat transfer coefficient due to the better thermal conductivity of silicon carbide tubes compared to glass tubes, the observed increase was 18–22% for 150–275kg·h1 airflow and 6kg·s1 propane-1,2-diol coolant in tubes. This additional 15–17% increase is probably due to local flow turbulisation due to the roughness of the sintered carbide of 4–10µm, which unfortunately also causes a 17–24% higher air pressure drop. The hand calculation model used underestimates the heat transfer coefficient by 2% to 10%, which is better than CHEMCAD 8 modeling results.
Description
Citation
EXPERIMENTAL HEAT TRANSFER. 2024, vol. volume 38, issue issue 6, p. 768-781.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08916152.2024.2413978
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08916152.2024.2413978
Document type
Peer-reviewed
Document version
Published version
Date of access to the full text
Language of document
en
Study field
Comittee
Date of acceptance
Defence
Result of defence
Document licence
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/