Outline
Background Objectives Experimental Procedure and Testing Calculation Method Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results Conclusion
Global Heat Transfer, Cooler Design, http:// www.ghtthx.com/Design.aspx , Consulted March 2013
Background
Background
Background
Background - Nomenclature
The nomenclature used to characterize the fin array tested
Wire diameter in inches Fin per inch (x axis) Fin per inch (z axis) Fin height in millimeters
12x12x0.035x1.3 Al
Fin material
Background
Background - Nomenclature
Background
Objectives
Characterize the heat transfer and pressure drop performances of the pyramidal fins Compare these performances with traditional fins (straight cut currently used at Brayton Energy Canada) Help the design process by providing accurate empirical correlations
Objectives
Experimental Procedure
Fin Sample 2" x 2" Sample Pure Aluminium Stainless Steel 304L 2" x 4" Sample Pure Aluminium Stainless Steel 304L
Thermal Conductance & Total Pressure Drop Experimental Procedure and Testing
10
Testing Apparatus
11
12
Hydraulic Diameter
Calculation Method
13
Heat Flux
Nusselt Number
Colburn Factor
Calculation Method
14
15
ukauskas separated data in three regimes: Laminar (0 < < 1000) Sub-critical ( 500 < < 200 000) Critical ( > 200 000)
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 ReD 6 7 8 9 10 12x12x0.035x1.35 Al Nu
Sub-critical
16
350
300
250 h (W/m2 K)
Laminar regime
24x24x0.014x1.4 Al Straight Cut Al
200
150
100
Sub-critical regime
50
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 ReD 6 7 8 9 10
17
18
24x24x0.014x1.4 Al
19
2.0
2.0
1.5 UA (W/ K)
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
UA (W/ K)
0.5
0.0 0
ReD 5 ReD 5
8 8
9 9
10 10
20
2.0
2.0
UA (W/ K)
UA (W/ K)
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
12x12x0.035x1.3 Al
0.5
0.5
0.0
21
Unfinned Surface
500 500
h (W/m2 K)
h (W/m2 K)
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0 0
0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5ReD ReD 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10
22
ReD = 1500
23
0.5
24
2.0
1.5 UA (W/ K)
1.0
12x12x0.035x1.4 SS
0.5
0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 ReD 6 7 8 9 10
25
24X24X0.014X1.4 Al
Differential Pressure (Pa) 5000
Straight Cut Al
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 0 2 4 6 8 ReD 10 12 14 16
26
27
500 500
1000 1000
2000 2000
2500 2500
3000 3000
28
29
Conclusion
The pyramidal fins outperform traditional straight cut fins at the same fin density while having the same pressure drop For the pyramidal fins, higher thermal conductance results in higher pressure drop, which is expected Fin density increases the thermal conductance and the pressure drop Fin height influence depends on the compromise between the total area and the convective heat transfer coefficient
Conclusion
30
Future Work
Need an efficiency index that includes the thermal performance and the pressure drop effects
Conclusion
31