Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
3
4
5
6
CONTENTS
Declaration
Certificate
Acknowledgement
Contents
List of Figures
Nomenclature
Abstract
NOMENCLATURE ...................................................................................................... 10
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 14
DIRECT AND INDIRECT REFRIGERATION SYSTEM .............................. 14 1.1
1.1.1. ADVANTAGES OF INDIRECT REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS ............ 15
1.1.2. DISADVANTAGES OF INDIRECT REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS ...... 16
1.2. NATURAL CIRCULATION LOOPS ............................................................. 16
1.2.1. ADVANTAGES OF NCL ........................................................................ 17
1.2.2. DISADVANTAGES OF NCL .................................................................. 17
1.3. NANOFLUIDS ............................................................................................... 18
1.3.1. ADVANTAGES OF NANOFLUID ......................................................... 19
1.3.2. DISADVANTAGE OF NANOFLUIDS ................................................... 19
1.4. OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 19
1.5. APPROACH ................................................................................................... 20
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 21
7
2.1. NANOFLUIDS: .............................................................................................. 21
2.2. NANOFLUIDS BASED NATURAL CIRCULATION LOOP: ....................... 23
3. MODELS FOR TURBULENCE ANALYSIS-TRANSPORT EQUATIONS.......... 25
3.1. TRANSPORTATION EQUATIONS FOR STANDARD K- MODEL: ......... 25
3.2. MODELLING TURBULENT VISCOSITY: ....................................................... 25
3.3. RNG k- EQUATIONS: ...................................................................................... 26
3.4. k- MIXTURE TURBULENCE MODELS ..................................................... 28
3.5. k- DISPERSED TURBULENCE MODELS .................................................. 29
3.6. STANDARD k- MODEL:............................................................................. 30
3.7. Transport Equations for the SST k- Model .................................................... 31
3.8. TRANSPORT EQUATIONS FOR THE k-kl- MODEL: ............................... 32
4. DESCRIPTION OF MULTIPHASE MODELS ...................................................... 33
4.1. THE MIXTURE MODEL ............................................................................... 33
4.1.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................ 33
4.1.2. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................ 34
4.1.3. CONTINUITY EQUATION .................................................................... 35
4.1.4. MOMENTUM EQUATION ..................................................................... 36
4.1.5. ENERGY EQUATION ............................................................................ 36
4.1.6. RELATIVE SLIP VELOCITY AND THE DRIFT VELOCITY ............... 37
4.1.7. GRANULAR PROPERTIES .................................................................... 38
4.1.8. KINETIC VISCOSITY ............................................................................ 38
4.1.9. GRANULAR TEMPERATURE .............................................................. 38
4.1.10. INTERFACIAL AREA CONCENTRATION .......................................... 39
4.2. EULERIAN MODEL ...................................................................................... 41
8
4.2.1. LIMITATION OF EULERIAN MODEL ................................................. 42
4.2.2. VOLUME OF FRACTION EQUATION ................................................. 42
4.2.3. EQUATIONS IN GENERAL FORM ....................................................... 43
4.3. VOLUME OF FLUID (VOF) MODEL THEORY ........................................... 47
4.3.1. OVERVIEW OF THE VOF MODEL: ...................................................... 47
4.3.2. LIMITATIONS OF THE VOF MODEL: ................................................. 47
4.3.3. STEADY-STATE AND TRANSIENT VOF CALCULATIONS: ............. 47
4.4. HOW TO CHOOSE A RIGHT MODEL? ....................................................... 51
5. PHYSICAL MODEL OF NCL ............................................................................... 53
5.1. PHYSICAL MODEL ...................................................................................... 53
5.2. GEOMETRIC AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MODE ....... 53
5.3. GRID GENERATION ..................................................................................... 54
6. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 55
6.1. COMPARITIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT TURBULENT MODELS ............ 55
6.1.1. VALIDATION ......................................................................................... 58
6.1.2. INFERENCES ......................................................................................... 60
6.2. SIMULATIONS OF WATER BASED NANOFLUIDS (Results) ................... 61
6.2.1. ENHANCEMENT OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY AND HEAT
TRANSFER RATE. ............................................................................................... 61
6.2.2. VISCOSITY ............................................................................................. 62
6.2.3. MASS FLOW RATE VARIATION ......................................................... 62
6.2.4. VALIDATION ......................................................................................... 63
7. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 66
8. FUTURE WORKS ................................................................................................. 67
9
List of Figures
Fig 1: Indirect refrigeration system with forced circulation type secondary loop
Fig 2 : Rectangular NCL
Fig 3 : Which model chose
Fig.4 : Schematic of the Natural Circulation Loop employed in the model
Fig 5: Meshing of a cross section
Fig 6: Variation of heat transfer rate w.r.t temperature (
)
Fig 7: Variation of mass flow rate w.r.t temperature (
)
Fig 8: Variation of Turbulent intensity rate w.r.t temperature (
)
Fig 9 : Variation of turbulent kinetic energy transfer rate w.r.t temperature (
)
Fig 10 : Variation of Turbulent dissipation rate w.r.t temperature (
)
Fig 11 : Reynolds number v\s
cross-diffusion term
F
length
empirical correlation that controls the length of the transition region
G
b
Generaration of turbulent kinetic energy due to buoyancy
g
i
component of the gravitational vector in the i
th
direction
k
L
laminar kinetic energy
k
T
turbulent kinetic energy
P
k
is the production of kinetic energy
P
m
dimensionless head pressure
Pr Prandlt number
Pr
t
turbulent Prandtl number for energy (default value of Pr
t
is 0.85)
Ra Rayleigh number
Re
c
critical Reynolds number
R
t
transition Reynolds number
S modulus of the mean rate-of-strain tensor
11
S
k
and S
k
and
nanocrystalline
particles in ethylene glycol. They characterized the size of nanoparticles by transmission
electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction, and measured thermal conductivity of
nanofluids using a purpose-built thermal comparator. The results showed that thermal
conductivity of nanofluids is around two times performance of the nanofluids. They also
derived some correlations for predicting Nusselt that of base fluid. Heat removal rate of
nanofluid was found to be better than base fluid. Hence, use of nanofluids was
recommended for automobiles.
Xuan et al. (2000) investigated the mechanism for heat transfer of nanofluids. They
derived the heat transfer correlation of the nanofluid by using two different approaches.
Chandrasekar et al. (2009) presented friction factor and heat transfer characteristics
of
nanofluid. They measured viscosity and thermal conductivity of nanofluid at different
volume concentrations. It was found out that thermal conductivity increase was
23
substantially lower than the increase in viscosity. They proposed models to predict
viscosity and thermal conductivity which showed good agreement with the experimental
results.
Yu et al. (2010) investigated the effect of addition Aluminium nitride nanoparticles
in the thermal conductivity of conventional heat exchange fluids. They carried out the
study for two types of base fluids, for ethylene glycol and propylene glycol. The
enhancement in thermal conductivity was found out to be slightly more for propylene
glycol. The temperature had a negligible effect on the conductivity enhancement ratio.
The two nanofluids behaved as Newtonian fluid at lower volume concentrations. While
the nanofluids exhibited shear-shinning behaviour at higher volume concentrations.
Suresh et al. (2010) investigated friction factor and convective heat transfer
characteristics of CuO/water nanofluid in a dimpled tube. They determined the effect of
nanofluids and dimples on the Reynolds number and Nusselt number. They investigated
effect of nanoparticles inclusion on viscosity, thermal conductivity, heat transfer
enhancement and pressure loss. Though the use of nanoparticles increased the heat
transfer, there was negligible increase in friction factor. Also the pressure drop was found
to be slightly increased with the addition of nanoparticles. This implied the nanofluid
may be suitable for practical application. The viscosity of the nanofluid increased with
increase in particle concentration.
Suresh et al. (2012) in another paper investigated the friction factor and convective
heat transfer characteristics of
nanofluids. They
24
found out that flow rates increased and flow instabilities decreased in the case of
nanofluids as compared with water. These two activities were found to depend upon the
nanoparticles volume fraction. They measured flow rate at different power. The initial
conditions of the loop and the rate of power rise were similar in all the cases. In the case
of nanofluids the flow rates were found to be higher than that in the case of water.
Nayak et al. (2011) studied the stability and transient behaviour of a boiling two-
phase natural circulation loop with water based
()
[(
(3.1.1)
For dissipation ,
()
[(
(3.1.2)
3.2. MODELLING TURBULENT VISCOSITY:
Turbulent viscosity is modelled as:
Production of k
Where S is the modulus of the mean rate-of-strain tensor, defined as:
Efficiency of buoyancy
26
Where Pr
t
is the turbulent Prandtl number for energy and g
i
is the component of
the gravitational vector in the i
th
direction. For the standard and realizable models, the
default value if Pr
t
is 0.85.The coefficient of thermal expansion B, is given as
Model constants
C
1c
=1.44, C
2c
=1.92, C
3c
=-0.33, C =0.99,
k
=1.0,
c
=1.
Strengths
Robust
Economical
reasonably accurate;
long accumulated performance data.
Weaknesses
Mediocre results for complex flows with severe pressure gradients,
Strong streamline curvature, swirl and rotation.
Predicts that round jets spread 15% faster than planar jets whereas in actuality
they spread 15% slower
3.3. RNG k- EQUATIONS:
The RNG model was developed using Re-Normalisation Group (RNG) methods
by to renormalize the Navier-Stokes equations, to account for the effects of smaller
scales of motion. In the standard k-epsilon model the eddy viscosity is determined from a
single turbulence length scale, so the calculated turbulent diffusion is that which occurs
only at the specified scale, whereas in reality all scales of motion will contribute to the
27
turbulent diffusion. The RNG approach, which is a mathematical technique that can be
used to derive a turbulence model similar to the k-epsilon, results in a modified form of
the epsilon equation which attempts to account for the different scales of motion through
changes to the production term.
There are a number of ways to write the transport equations for k and epsilon, a
simple interpretation where buoyancy is also included.
()
[(
(3.2.1)
()
[(
(3.2.2)
Where
With the turbulent viscosity being calculated in the same manner as with the
standard k- model.
P
k
is the production of kinetic energy
Constants:
It is interesting to note that the values of all of the constants (except ) are derived
explicitly in the RNG procedure. They are given below with the commonly used values
in the standard k-epsilon equation in brackets for comparison:
Cu = 0.0845(0.09) ,
k
= 0.7194(1.0) ,
c
= 0.7194(1.30) , C
e1
= 1.42(1.44) , C
e2
=
1.68(1.92) ,
0
= 4.38 and = 0.012 (derived from experiment).
28
3.4. k- MIXTURE TURBULENCE MODELS
The mixture turbulence model is the default multiphase turbulence model. It
represents the first extension of the k- model, and it is applicable when phases separate,
for stratified (or nearly stratified) multiphase flows, and when the density ratio between is
close to 1.
The k and equations describing this model are as follows:
(
) (
(3.2.4)
And
(
) (
)
Where the mixture density and velocity,
and
And
The turbulent viscosity,
, is computed from
And the production of turbulence kinetic energy, G
k,m
is computed from
29
3.5.k- DISPERSED TURBULENCE MODELS
The model is applicable when there is clearly one primary continuous phase and the
rest are dispersed dilute secondary phases. Time and length scales that characterize the
motion are used to evaluate dispersion coefficient, correlation functions, and the turbulent
kinetic energy of each dispersed model.
The characteristic particle relaxation time connected with inertial effects acting on a
dispersed phase p is defined as
)
The Lagrangian integral time scale calculated along particle trajectories, mainly affected
by the crossing trajectory effect is defined as
)
Where
|
And
Where is the angle between the mean particle velocity and the mean relative
velocity.
The ratio between these two characteristic times is written as
30
Strengths
Good for moderately complex behaviour like jet impingement
separating flows
swirling flows
secondary flow
Weakness
Subjected to limitations due to isotropic eddy viscosity assumption.
3.6. STANDARD k- MODEL:
Kinematic Eddy Viscosity
Turbulence Kinetic Energy
[(
]
Specific Dissipation Rate
[(
]
Closure Coefficient and Auxiliary Relations
=5/9, =3/40,
*
=9/100, =1/2, *=1/2, =
*
k
Strength
Behaviour of k-omega model in the logarithmic region is superior than k-epsilon
in equillibrium adverse pressure gradient flows.
31
Weaknesses
Away from the wall k-w model depicts strong sensitivity to the free stream values
K-w model does not accurately represent k and epsilon distribution in agreement
with DNS data.
3.7.Transport Equations for the SST k- Model
The SST k- model has a similar form to the standard k- model:
()
And
()
In these equations,
represents the
effective diffusivity for k and due to turbulence, Y
k
andY
[(
[(
]
The inclusion of the turbulent and laminar fluctuations on the mean flow and
energy equations via the eddy viscosity and thermal diffusivity is as follows:
Strength
Able to predict laminar to turbulent transition
Weakness
Grid dependency and over-prediction of turbulence in transition zones if not
correctly handled.
33
4. DESCRIPTION OF MULTIPHASE MODELS
4.1.THE MIXTURE MODEL
The mixture model is designed for two or more phases (fluid or particulate). As in
the Eulerian model, the phases are treated as interpenetrating continua. The mixture
model solves for the mixture momentum equation and prescribes relative velocities to
describe the dispersed phases. Applications of the mixture model include particle-laden
flows with low loading, bubbly flows, sedimentation, and cyclone separators. The
mixture model can also be used without relative velocities for the dispersed phases to
model homogeneous multiphase flow.
4.1.1 OVERVIEW
The mixture model is a simplified multiphase model that can be used in different
ways. It can be used to model multiphase flows where the phases move at different
velocities, but assume local equilibrium over short spatial length scales. It can be used to
model homogeneous multiphase flows with very strong coupling and phases moving at
the same velocity and lastly, the mixture models are used to calculate non-Newtonian
viscosity.
The mixture model can model n phases (fluid or particulate) by solving the
momentum, continuity, and energy equations for the mixture, the volume fraction
equations for the secondary phases, and algebraic expressions for the relative velocities.
Typical applications include sedimentation, cyclone separators, particle-laden flows with
low loading, and bubbly flows where the gas volume fraction remains low.
The mixture model is a good substitute for the full Eulerian multiphase model in
several cases. A full multiphase model may not be feasible when there is a wide
distribution of the particulate phase or when the interphase laws are unknown or their
reliability can be questioned. A simpler model like the mixture model can perform as
34
well as a full multiphase model while solving a smaller number of variables than the full
multiphase model.
The mixture model allows you to select granular phases and calculates all
properties of the granular phases. This is applicable for liquid-solid flows.
4.1.2. LIMITATIONS
The following limitations apply to the mixture model in ANSYS FLUENT:
Pressure-based solver is to be used. The mixture model is not available with the
density-based solver.
Only one of the phases can be defined as a compressible ideal gas. There is no
limitation on using compressible liquids using user-defined functions.
When the mixture model is used, stream wise periodic flow is not to be modelled
with specified mass flow rate.
Solidification and melting are not to be modelled in conjunction with the mixture
model.
The Singhal et al. cavitation model (available with the mixture model) is not
compatible with the LES turbulence model.
The relative formulations in combination with the MRF and mixture model are
not to be used. The mixture model does not allow for inviscid flows.
The shell conduction model for walls is not allowed with the mixture model.
When tracking particles in parallel, do not use the DPM model with the mixture
model if the shared memory option is enabled.
35
The mixture model, like the VOF model, uses a single-fluid approach. It differs from
the VOF model in two respects:
The mixture model allows the phases to be interpenetrating. The volume fractions
and
for a control volume can therefore be equal to any value between 0 and
1, depending on the space occupied by phase q and phase p.
The mixture model allows the phases to move at different velocities, using the
concept of slip velocities.
The mixture model solves the continuity equation for the mixture, the momentum
equation for the mixture, the energy equation for the mixture, and the volume fraction
equation for the secondary phases, as well as algebraic expressions for the relative
velocities (if the phases are moving at different velocities).
4.1.3. CONTINUITY EQUATION
The continuity equation for the mixture is
) (
)
where
and
where
) (
)]
Where n is the number of phases, F is a body force, and
4.1.5. ENERGY EQUATION
The energy equation for the mixture takes the following form:
where
The mass fraction for any phase (k) is defined as:
The drift velocity and the relative velocity (
While solving a mixture multiphase calculation with slip velocity, the following
formulations are available for the drag function:
Schiller-Naumann (the default formulation)
Morsi-Alexander
Symmetric
Constant
User-defined
38
4.1.7. GRANULAR PROPERTIES
Since the concentration of particles is an important factor in the calculation of the
effective viscosity for the mixture, we may use the granular viscosity to get a value for
the viscosity of the suspension. The volume weighted averaged for the viscosity would
now contain shear viscosity arising from particle momentum exchange due to translation
and collision.
The collisional and kinetic parts, and the optional frictional part, are added to give
the solids shear viscosity:
4.1.8. KINETIC VISCOSITY
ANSYS FLUENT provides two expressions for the kinetic viscosity:
Syamlal et al. (default)
Gidaspow et al.
4.1.9. GRANULAR TEMPERATURE
The viscosities need the specification of the granular temperature for the
solids phase. Here we use an algebraic equation from the granular temperature transport
equation. This is only applicable for dense fluidized beds where the convection and the
diffusion term can be neglected under the premise that production and dissipation of
granular energy are in equilibrium.
(
):
where ,
(
):
solid
phase.
The collisional dissipation of energy,
)
Where
), and
is the mass transfer rate into the gas phase per unit mixture volume.
and
are the coalescence sink terms due to random collision and wake
entrainment, respectively.
Where
The effective density of phase q is
Where
) (
) (
Where
) (
)
Where,
is the q
th
phase stess-strain tensor
Here,
and
is an external
force,
is a lift force,
is an interaction force
between phases, and p is the pressure shared by all phases.
; . If
; Likewise, if
> 0 then
, if
< 0 then
.
Continuity Equation
The volume fraction of each phase is calculated from a continuity equation:
) (
) (
)
Where
) (
)
Where ps is the sth solid pressure, Kis =Ksi is the momentum exchange coefficient
between fluid or solid phase I and solid phase phase s, N is the total number of phases,
and
.
Maximum Packing Limit in Binary Mixtures
The packing limit is not a fixed quantity and may change according to the number
of particles present within a given volume and the diameter of the particles. Small
particles accumulate in between larger particles increasing the packing limit.
For a binary mixture with different diameters, the mixture composition is defined as:
Where,
As this is a condition for application of the maximum packing limit for the binary
mixtures.
46
The maximum packing limit of the mixture
] (
)
(
] (
)(
The packing limit is used for the calculation of the radial distribution function.
Granular Temperature
The granular temperature for the s
th
solid phase is proportional to the kinetic
energy of the random motion of the particles. The transport equation derived from the
kinetic theory takes the form
) (
)] (
(5.13)
Where,
(
then
the following three conditions are possible:
fluid)
fluid)
) (
] (6.1)
Where
is the mass
transfer from phase p to phase q.
The volume fraction equation will not be solved for the primary phase; the
primary-phase volume fraction will be computed based on the following constraint:
The implicit scheme:
When the implicit scheme is used for time discretization, standard finite-
difference interpolation schemes, QUICK, Second Order Upwind and First Order
Upwind, and the Modified HRIC schemes, are used to obtain the face fluxes for all cells,
including those near the interface.
) [
)] (6.2)
49
Since this equation requires the volume fraction values at the current time step
(rather than at the previous step, as for the explicit scheme), a standard scalar transport
equation is solved iteratively for each of the secondary-phase volume fractions at each
time step. The implicit scheme can be used for both time-dependent and steady-state
calculations.
The explicit scheme:
In the explicit approach, standard finite-difference interpolation schemes are
applied to the volume fraction values that were computed at the previous time step.
) [(
] (6.3)
Where,
n+1=index for new (current) time step
n=index for previous time step
(6.4)
All other properties (e.g., viscosity) are computed in this manner.
Momentum Equation
A single momentum equation is solved throughout the domain, and the resulting
velocity field is shared among the phases. The momentum equation, shown below, is
dependent on the volume fractions of all phases through the properties and .
() ( ) [(
)]
(6.5)
One limitation of the shared-fields approximation is that in cases where large
velocity differences exist between the phases, the accuracy of the velocities computed
near the interface can be adversely affected.
Energy Equation
The energy equation, also shared among the phases, is shown below.
() (( )) (
(6.6)
The VOF model treats energy,, and temperature, , as mass-averaged variables.
The properties and
(7.1)
(7.2)
The St gives a measure of temporal correlation between particle velocity and the fluid
velocity
If St <<1, the particle follows bulk macroscopic flow.
The particles are in quasi equilibrium with the surrounding flow.
Multiphase
flow
Dispersed Flow
(Eulerian tracking)
Eulerian,
mixture model
VOF Model
Yes
No
52
If St = 1, the particle tend to substantially modify the bulk macroscopic flow.
If St>>1, the particle motion is weakly affected by the motion.
To choose between the mixture model and the Eulerian model, you should
consider the following guidelines:
- If there is a wide distribution of the dispersed phases (i.e., if the particles vary in
size and the largest particles do not separate from the primary flow field), the mixture
model may be preferable (i.e., less computationally expensive). If the dispersed phases
are concentrated just in portions of the domain, you should use the Eulerian model
instead.
- If interphase drag laws that are applicable to your system are available (either
within ANSYS FLUENT or through a user-defined function), the Eulerian model can
usually provide more accurate results than the mixture model. Even though you can apply
the same drag laws to the mixture model, as you can for a non-granular Eulerian
simulation, if the interphase drag laws are unknown or their applicability to your system
is questionable, the mixture model may be a better choice. For most cases with spherical
particles, the Schiller-Naumann law is more than adequate. For cases with non-spherical
particles, a user-defined function can be used.
- If you want to solve a simpler problem, which requires less computational effort,
the mixture model may be a better option, since it solves a smaller number of equations
than the Eulerian model. If accuracy is more important than computational effort, the
Eulerian model is a better choice. Keep in mind, however, that the complexity of the
Eulerian model can make it less computationally stable than the mixture model.
53
5. PHYSICAL MODEL OF NCL
5.1.PHYSICAL MODEL
Figure 8.1. shows the schematic of a 3-D rectangular NCL which consists of an
isothermal sink, an isothermal source, left and right insulated pipes. The loop fluid is
heated sensibly in the isothermal heat source (TH) and is cooled sensibly in the
isothermal heat sink (TC). Circulation of the loop fluid is maintained due to the buoyancy
effect caused by heating at the bottom and cooling at the top.
The following simplifying assumptions are made in the analysis:
i. The loop fluids, CO2 and water, are in single-phase throughout the loop.
ii. The system is operating at steady-state.
iii. All external walls except the heat source and sink are perfectly insulated.
iv. Wall material is isotropic with constant thermal conductivity.
Fig.4 : Schematic of the Natural Circulation Loop employed in the model
5.2.GEOMETRIC AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MODE
Internal diameter of the loop (d) = 15 mm
Length of isothermal sink or source (L) = 120 cm
Total width of the loop (
) = 146 cm
54
Total height of the loop (
) = 124.5 cm
Total length of the loop (
) = 545 cm
Insulated pipe length in horizontal pipe (2
) = 26 cm
Radius of curvature for bend (R) = 30 mm
Tube wall thickness = 2 mm
Material of the loop = copper
5.3. GRID GENERATION
Meshing of a three dimensional geometry has been carried out in Gambit 2.4.6.
Figure 8.2 shows the meshing (fluid part only) of a cross section of the loop which has a
minimum grid size of 0.2 mm in radial direction near the wall and increases to the
maximum grid size of 1.5 mm away from the wall. Coarse meshing is adopted in the
axial direction (5 mm grid size in horizontal pipes including bends and 10 mm for
vertical pipes). Mesh generation yielded a total of 235,552 nodes. The values of Y+ and
Y* have been checked for all the cases of turbulent flow to ensure optimal choice of
fineness of grid. Maximum Y+ and Y* values in the present study are 54.5 and 54.4,
respectively, which ensure that the grid is suitable for the assumption of standard wall
function near the wall (Launder and Spalding, 1974).
Where, u
Fig 5 : Mesh generation
Where, k=turbulent kinetic energy, y= distance from the wall, C
=0.0845.
55
6. RESULTS
6.1. COMPARITIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT TURBULENT MODELS
All the turbulence models are compared for various outputs such as heat transfer
rate in the heat exchangers, mass flow rate of CO
2
in the loop, Turbulence intensity,
turbulent kinetic energy, turbulent dissipation rate for various values of average
temperature of cold & hot heat exchanger. Also velocity contours at various cross
sections of the loop for different models are obtained. The plots obtained are shown
below:
310 315 320 325 330 335
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
T
o
t
a
l
H
e
a
t
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
R
a
t
e
,
Q
(
W
)
Temperature (K)
ke RNG
ke STD
kw STD
kw SST
k-kl w
Total heat transfer rate vs Temperature
Fig 6: Variation of heat transfer rate w.r.t temperature (
)
The total heat transfer showed a increasing trend upto certain temperature and
then decreases at higher temperatures. This can be explained due to the pseudo critical
point of carbon-di-oxide which is located at around 318K. Also the heat transfer rate
plots for all the models showed that the values are in good agreement except for the k-kl
w model.
56
310 315 320 325 330 335
0.045
0.050
0.055
0.060
0.065
0.070
0.075
0.080
M
a
s
s
f
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
(
k
g
/
s
)
Temperature (K)
ke RNG
ke STD
kw STD
kw SST
k-kl w
Mass Flow rate Vs Temperature
Fig 7: Variation of mass flow rate w.r.t temperature (
)
310 315 320 325 330 335
4
5
6
7
8
9
T
u
r
b
u
l
e
n
t
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
%
)
Temperature (K)
ke RNG
ke STD
kw STD
kw SST
k-kl w
Turbulent Intensity vs. Temperature
Fig 8: Variation of Turbulent intensity rate w.r.t temperature (
)
57
310 315 320 325 330 335
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
F
1
Temperature (K)
ke RNG
ke STD
kw STD
kw SST
k-kl w
Turbulent kinetic energy vs. temperature
Fig 9 : Variation of turbulent kinetic energy transfer rate w.r.t temperature (
)
310 315 320 325 330 335
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.34
T
u
r
b
u
l
e
n
t
D
i
s
s
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
(
E
p
s
i
l
o
n
)
(
m
2
/
s
3
)
Temperature (K)
ke RNG
ke STD
kw STD
kw SST
k-kl w
Turbulent dessipation rate vs Temperature
Fig 10 : Variation of Turbulent dissipation rate w.r.t temperature (
)
Other parameters of turbulent modelling i.e turbulent intensity and turbulent
kinetic energy and turbulent dissipation rate also increases with the increase in average
loop temperature. And the mass flow rate in the loop decreases.
58
6.1.1. VALIDATION
1.60E+016 1.80E+016 2.00E+016 2.20E+016 2.40E+016 2.60E+016 2.80E+016 3.00E+016 3.20E+016 3.40E+016
180000
190000
200000
210000
220000
230000
240000
250000
260000
R
e
Grm*d/l
Vijayan_turb
Re Re vs Grm*d/l (ke RNG)
6.00E+0136.50E+0137.00E+0137.50E+0138.00E+0138.50E+0139.00E+0139.50E+013
200000
205000
210000
215000
220000
225000
230000
235000
240000
245000
250000
255000
R
e
Grm*d/l
Vijayan_turb
Re Re vs Grm*d/l (ke STD)
5.00E+013 6.00E+013 7.00E+013 8.00E+013 9.00E+013 1.00E+014
190000
200000
210000
220000
230000
240000
250000
260000
R
e
Grm*d/l
Vijayan_turb
Re Re vs Grm*d/l (kw STD)
5.00E+013 6.00E+013 7.00E+013 8.00E+013 9.00E+013 1.00E+014
190000
200000
210000
220000
230000
240000
250000
260000
R
e
Grm*d/l
Vijayan_turb
Re Re vs Grm*d/l (kw SST)
59
1.36E+0141.38E+0141.40E+0141.42E+0141.44E+0141.46E+0141.48E+0141.50E+014
260000
270000
280000
290000
300000
310000
320000
R
e
Grm*d/l
Vijayan_turb
Re
Re vs Grm*d/l (k-kl w)
Fig 11 : Reynolds number v\s
Proposed correlation:
60
6.1.2. INFERENCES
In this study, water is employed as the external fluid in both CHX and HHX. Inlet
temperature of water in CHX is kept constant at 305 K and that in HHX is varied from
313 K to 353 K in steps of 10 K. Results are obtained for operating pressure of 90 bar.
Operating pressure of the system is defined at the centre of HHX.
The total heat transfer rate reaches a maximum at temperature of around 315K
which is because of unique property of carbon dioxide, whose specific heat
reaches a maximum value at temperature of 315K (Pseudo critical region) as
shown below in the graph, which increases the heat transfer rate at that operating
temperature
Fig 12: Specific heat variation of Co2 with Temperature
The transition k-kl- turbulence model is seen deviating from the other
models. This is because the transition from laminar to turbulence is over-
predicted by the model, i.e, the transitional term is overestimated.
The Turbulence Intensity, Turbulence kinetic energy increases with
increase in temperature.
61
6.2. SIMULATIONS OF WATER BASED NANOFLUIDS (Results)
6.2.1. ENHANCEMENT OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY AND HEAT
TRANSFER RATE.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
T
h
e
r
m
a
l
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Volume Fraction
Cu
TiO2
Al2O3
CuO
Fig 13 :Variation of Thermal conductivity of Various nanofluids with volume
fraction
It is found after simulation of water based nanofluids with different nanoparticles
that the thermal conductivity as well as the heat transfer rate of the base fluid is enhanced
considerably. Further more the thermal conductivity increases linearly with the increase
in volume fraction of the nanoparticles in the base fluid. However there Heat transfer rate
in the CHX and HHX wall will increase upto a certain point after which it shows an
opposite trend which may be explained because of the settling and coagulation of
nanoparticles at higher volume fractions, the nanofluid tending to become a pure fluid.
And this Maximum point varies for different nanofluids which depends on the density of
the nanoparticles present.
62
6.2.2. VISCOSITY
Viscosity is found to increase with the increases in Volume fraction (Vf) of the
nanoparticles present in the nanofluid.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
0.0008
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
0.0016
0.0018
0.0020
0.0022
0.0024
0.0026
v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y
vf
Cu
TiO2
Al2O3
CuO
Fig 13 : Variation of Viscosity of Various nanofluids with Volume fraction
6.2.3. MASS FLOW RATE VARIATION
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.015
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.019
0.020
M
a
s
s
f
l
o
w
r
a
t
e
Volume fraction
Cu
TiO2
Al2O3
CuO
Fig 14 :Variation of the mass flow rate with Volume fraction
63
Mass flow rate increases with increase in volume fraction Increase in mass flow
rate increases heat transfer rate. The trend followed is very much similar to heat transfer
rate. So, heat transfer rate is highly influenced by the mass flow rate.
6.2.4. VALIDATION
In order to validate the results obtained from the CFD simulation, an additional
comparison was carried out employing the experimental data reported earlier by Vijayan
(2002), which was obtained on a water based NCL with an electrical heater (with
constant wall heat flux) and a heat exchanger in place of a constant temperature heating
pipe and cooling pipe respectively. In view of the dissimilarity between two physical
configurations, the comparison was made in terms of non-dimensional parameters
Reynolds number (Re) and modified Grashof number (Grm) which are calculated at the
bulk mean temperature (Tm) of the loop. Figure shows that the data trends agree
reasonably well with the previously reported measured dataas shown in Fig 15-17.
Vijayans correlation
Proposed correlation
64
0 6000000 12000000 18000000 24000000 30000000
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
Gr(d/L)
Re
Re(Vijayan)
Re(old)
Fig 15 : Validation of Simulation results with Vijayans correlation (CuO)
3000000 6000000 9000000 12000000 15000000
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
R
e
Gr d/L
Re Al2O3
old prposed
vijayan
Fig 16 : Validation of Simulation results with Vijayans correlation(Al2O3)
65
6000000 7200000 8400000 9600000 10800000 12000000
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
R
e
Gr d/L
Re TiO2
Old proposed
Vijayan
Fig 16 : Validation of Simulation results with Vijayans correlation (TiO2)
66
7. CONCLUSION
The addition of metal oxide nanoparticles considerably increases the heat transfer
rate in condenser and evaporator
High thermal conductivity of the solid nanoparticles than that of the base fluid
water increases the overall heat transfer rate .
The heat transfer rate is more for nanofluid containing pure Cu nanoparticles than
containing metal-oxide nanoparticles
The heat transfer rate increases with increase in volume fraction of nanoparticles
in the base fluid upto a certain point after which it decreases due to coagulation
and settling of particles.
Viscosity of the nanofluid increases with increase in the volume fraction of
nanoparticle.
Mass flow rate inside the natural circulation loop increases upto a certain amount
of volume fraction after which it decreases due to settling of particles
The peak of heat transfer rate reached shifts towards left as the density of the
particle increases
67
8. FUTURE WORKS
Further studies in the opted field on the basis of the carried out work can be extended to:
The study of behaviour of other nanoparticles like Carbon Nano Tubes(CNT),
Silver, Graphene Nanoflex and composites.
An experimental approach to further validate the results and suggest appropriate
correlations.
Other base fluid and particle combinations like Ethylene Glycol and Propylene
Glycol with the above suggested nano particles can be studied.
The geometrical properties of the loop can also be varied for a given nanofluid.
Effect of different operating conditions on the behaviour of nanofluid can be
studied.
68
REFERENCES
[1] Chen K S, Chen Y Y, Shiao S W, Wang P C, An experimental study of steady
state behavior of a two phase natural circulation loop, Energy Conversion and
Management, V 31(6), pp. 553-569, 1991.
[2] P. Keblinski, R. Prasher, J. Eapen, Thermal conductance of nanofluids: is the
controversy over?, J Nanopart Res, 10 (2008), pp. 10891097.
[3] R. Prasher, P.E. Phelan, P. Bhattacharya, Effect of Aggregation Kinetics on the
Thermal Conductivity of Nanoscale Colloidal Solutions (Nanofluids), Nano Lett, 6
(2006), pp. 15291534.
[4] J. Philip, P.D. Shima, B. Raj, Enhancement of thermal conductivity in magnetite
based nanofluid due to chainlike structures, Appl Phys Lett, 91 (2007), p. 203108.
[5] J.W. Gao, R.T. Zheng, H. Ohtani, D.S. Zhu, G. Chen, Experimental Investigation
of Heat Conduction Mechanisms in Nanofluids. Clue on Clustering, Nano Lett, 9
(2009), pp. 41284132.
[6] J. Philip, P.D. Shima, B. Raj, Evidence for enhanced thermal conduction through
percolating structures in nanofluids, Nanotechnology, 19 (2008), p. 305706.
[7] M.J. Pastoriza-Gallego, C. Casanova, J.L. Legido, M.M. Pineiro, CuO in water
nanofluid: Influence of particle size and polydispersity on volumetric behaviour
and viscosity, Fluid Phase Equilibria 300 (2011) 188196.
[9] Wei Yu, Huaqing Xie, Lifei Chen, Yang Li, Investigation of thermal conductivity
and viscosity of ethylene glycol based ZnO nanofluid, Thermochimica Acta 491
(2009) 9296.
[10] Y.J. Hwang, Y.C. Ahn, H.S. Shin, C.G. Lee, G.T. Kim, H.S. Park, J.K. Lee,
Investigation on characteristics of thermal conductivity enhancement of nanofluids,
Current Applied Physics 6 (2006) 10681071.
[11] Y. Hwang, H.S. Park, J.K. Lee, W.H. Jung, Thermal conductivity and lubrication
characteristics of nanofluids, Current Applied Physics 6S1 (2006) 667671.
69
[12] Yimin Xuan, Qiang Li, Heat transfer enhancement of nanfuids, International
Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 21 (2000) 58-64.
[13] Manoj Chopkar, Prasanta K. Dasb and Indranil Manna, Synthesis and
characterization of nanofluid for advanced heat transfer applications, Scripta
Materialia 55 (2006) 549552.
[14] Yimin Xuan, Wilfried Roetzel, Conceptions for heat transfer correlation of
nanofluids, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 3701-3707.
[15] M. Chandrasekar, S. Suresh, A. Chandra Bose, Experimental studies on heat
transfer and friction factor characteristics of
nanofluids, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 210-216.
[17] Wei Yu, Huaqing Xie, Yang Li, Lifei Chen, Experimental investigation on
thermal conductivity and viscosity of aluminum nitride nanofluid, Particulogy 9
(2011) 187191.
[18] S. Suresh, M. Chandrasekar, S. Chandra Sekhar, Experimental studies on heat
transfer and friction factor characteristics of CuO/water nanofluid under turbulent flow
in a helically dimpled tube, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 35 (2011) 542
549.
[19] S. Suresh, P. Selvakumar, M. Chandrasekar, V. Srinivasa Raman, Experimental
studies on heat transfer and friction factor characteristics of
nanofluid
under turbulent flow with spiraled rod inserts, Chemical Engineering and Processing
53 (2012) 2430.
70
[20] A.K. Nayak, M.R. Gartia, P.K. Vijayan, An experimental investigation of single-
phase natural circulation behavior in a rectangular loop with
nanofluids,
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 33 (2008) 184189.
[21] A.K. Nayak, P.P. Kulkarni, P.K. Vijayan, Study on the transient and stability
behaviour of a boiling two-phase natural circulation loop with
nanofluids,
Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 1673-1681.
[22] Praveen K. Namburu, Devdatta P. Kulkarni, Debasmita Misra, Debendra K. Das,
Viscosity of copper oxide nanoparticles dispersed in ethylene glycol and water
mixture, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 32 (2007) 397402.
[23] Y. Xuan, Q. Li, Investigation on convective heat transfer and flow features of
nanofluids, Journal of Heat Transfer 125 (2003) 151155.
[24] M. Misale, F. Devia, P. Garibaldi, Experiments with
nanofluid in a single-
phase natural circulation mini-loop: Preliminary results, Applied Thermal Engineering
40 (2012) 64-70.
[25] John Phillip, Sharma P.D., Thermal properties of nanofluids, advances in
colloidal and Interface Science, Volume 183-184, 15 November 2012, Pages 3045.