Size Effect on Thermal Characteristic of Tubular Heat Exchanger at Miniscale and Microscale

Abstract

The scope for the heat transfer enhancement in the tubular heat exchanger is high due to its unique property of having two separate convective heat transfer coefficients. The variation of diameter and annular space has a direct effect on the value of convective heat transfer coefficients due to their inverse relation. Thus, the strong emphasis must be given on the influence of diameter and annular space on the thermal characteristics of the tubular heat exchanger. In this numerical analysis, peculiarities in the improvement of the performance parameters are studied with the variation in the value of inlet velocities of the fluids (cold and hot), inner pipe diameter, and annular space for the combination of dimensional range such as miniscale and microscale range. The inner tube diameter is observed to be sensitive to the improvement in the performance parameter. The growth in the performance parameter of the tubular micro heat exchanger is found to be higher when both the values of diameter and annular space are in the microscale range.

Two Dimensional Topology Optimization of Heat Exchangers with the Density and Level-Set Methods

“…electronic circuits, biomedical processes, robotics, etc., cf. [81], [79]. High surface area to volume ratio comes nonetheless at the expense of a greater pressure drop across the flow channels which translates into a higher operating costs [40].…”

CFD study of Convective Heat Transfer of Water Flow Through Micro-Pipe with Mixed Constant Wall Temperature and Heat Flux Wall Boundary Conditions

“…The miniature modern machines in medical, chemical and information technology demand highly effective and space-efficient heat exchanging devices. The heat transfer and hydrodynamic features of micro ducts have been investigated enormously in past few years by following researchers: Gulhane and Mahulikar [1], Mala et al, [2], Sobhan and Garimella [3], Morini [4], Hetsroni et al, [5], Kandlikar and Steinke [6], Hong and Asako [7], van Rij et al, [8], Kandlikar [9], Garimella and Sobhan [10], Prabhu and Mahulikar [11], Adham et al, [12], Dixit and Ghosh [13], Rastogi and Mahulikar [14], Tharkar and Mahulikar [15], Tharkar and Mahulikar [16] and Kumar et al, [17]. There are still great variations in the reported data.…”