All of the situations studied in the previous chapters concern flow in forced convection, that is to say, the fluid motion is generated by an external unit: pump, compressor, etc. Yet, whilst such situations represent the majority of flows encountered in industrial systems, it is important to highlight the existence, in practice, of cases where motion is generated in the absence of any external element.
Indeed, unlike forced convection, natural (or free) convection corresponds to a heat transfer mode where the fluid motion is quite simply induced by forces of Archimedes, generated by differences in fluid density, the latter being themselves caused by temperature differences within the fluid. Examples of this type of flow can be found in the operation of flat thermosiphon solar collectors or in heat exchanges between wall-mounted heating radiators and ambient air.
Consider a fluid at temperature θ∞, in contact with a surface of temperature θw, greater than θ∞ (see Figure 5.1). The fluid masses located in the vicinity of the surface heat up and their densities, thus, decrease.
This decrease in density makes these masses lighter which enables them to rise upward, with a force proportional to the density difference thus created. Indeed, the force per unit volume exerted on these masses is equal to . As a result, a motion is generated, where the hot fluid masses rise, leaving space for the cooler masses, which “plunge” towards the hot plate. The acceleration, , of this motion is obtained by dividing force by mass, or: .
In order to derive an expression for the relative variation of density, , let us introduce the constant-pressure thermal expansion coefficient:
Yet: .
Or, as a first approximation: .
Hence: .
The acceleration, , of the upward motion due to the temperature difference then becomes:
Thus, the motion will be conditioned by the parameter β(θw −θ∞)g, which constitutes the driving force for natural convection. From this parameter, we can then define a dimensionless number, called the Grashof number, which enables us to compare this driving force of natural convection (β(θw −θ∞)g) to the viscous forces determined by the kinematic viscosity of the fluid considered.
The Grashof number is thus defined by: , where:
δ is a characteristic dimension of the surface considered: the height, length, width or diameter, as appropriate;
ρ is the density of the fluid;
G is the acceleration of gravity;
β is the constant-pressure thermal expansion coefficient of the fluid:
μ is the viscosity of the fluid within the range of temperatures considered;
(θw −θ∞) is the gradient between the wall temperature, θw, and the fluid approach temperature, θ∞.
We have shown, through the application of dimensional analysis (see Chapter 1, section 1.4.2.2), that the natural convection heat transfer coefficient, h, i.e. the Nusselt number, can be expressed as a function of the Grashof and Prandtl numbers, as follows:
where:
Parameters C, a and b, are determined based on experimentation
Several experiments of this type have been conducted and have enabled appropriate parameters to be determined for the experimental situations considered. The following sections present the most significant correlations determined in this way.
The relations presented in the sub-sections below consider the different situations that can be of interest in engineering calculations:
This type of problem corresponds to the scenario of wall-mounted ambient-heating radiators, where heat is transmitted from the radiator to the air in the room by natural convection. It is also encountered in the case of electronic-component heat sinks; see sections 5.17 to 5.19.
In industrial environments, several situations are encountered where vertical surfaces are cooled or heated by natural convection.
Both Gebhart (1961) and Kato, Nishiwaki and Hirata (1968) analyzed the problems relating to natural convection heat transfer between a significant mass of fluid at average temperature θm and hot vertical plane surfaces (temperature θpm > θm).
Under these conditions, the following correlations have been determined:
In these relations:
In order to estimate the natural convection heat transfer coefficient between a significant mass of fluid at average temperature θm and a flat plate forming an angle, α , with the horizontal surface, the following correlations can be used:
In these relations:
Several studies have been conducted on natural convection heat transfer between horizontal plates and the surrounding environment (Brown and Marco, 1958; Jakob, 1957). The correlations obtained are of great use in calculations relating to thermal design in buildings and particularly for the design of underfloor heating.
For a hot surface placed in the lower part of a chamber containing the fluid, one of the following correlations can be used:
In these relations, the characteristic dimension, δ, taken into account in Nu and in Gr is:
For a cold surface placed in the upper part of a chamber containing the fluid, the following correlations can be used as a function of the flow regime:
In these relations:
The correlations obtained for vertical cylinders are (Gebhart, 1961):
These relations are valid if:
In the case of horizontal cylinders subject to a natural convection, the average Nusselt number depends on the product, Gr Pr:
The characteristic dimension taken into account in Nu and Gr is the external diameter of the tube, δ.
For a sphere of diameter D, we recommend using the following correlation to calculate the average Nusselt number:
This correlation is valid with:
For conical surfaces subject to a natural convection, the following correlation can be used:
In this correlation:
For any surface, and in the absence of the possibility of estimating the natural convection heat transfer coefficient, we can use the relations valid for vertical cylinders by choosing a characteristic dimension, δ, defined by:
where:
Lh is the length obtained by projecting the surface considered onto a horizontal axis;
Lv is the vertical projection of the surface.
Several practical situations implement a fluid (generally air) between two plates of temperatures θp1 and θp2, respectively (θp2 > θp1). This is the case for plane solar collectors, where the absorber constitutes the hot plate (at θp2) and the glazing constitutes the second plate.
This type of configuration is also encountered in double glazing, used to minimize heat loss through windows. In the latter cases, the parallel plates are generally arranged vertically (see Figure 5.11). The hot plate can be either the plate that is in contact with the inside (as in a heated building), or that facing the outside (as in air-conditioning), according to the scenario.
For such situations, the average Nusselt number is obtained from the following general correlation:
where:
δ is the distance between the plates;
The C and n constants depend on the position of the plates and the Grashof number. They are given in Table 5.1 below.
The physical properties of the fluid separating the two plates are taken at average temperature, :
Table 5.1. Parameters C and n (*hot plate located at the bottom)
Vertical plates | ||
Condition on Gr | C | n |
2 105 < Gr ≤ 1.1 107 | 0.071 | 1/3 |
2 103 < Gr ≤ 2 105 | 0.20 | 1/4 |
Gr ≤ 2 103 | Nu = 1 | |
Horizontal plates* | ||
Condition on Gr | C | n |
3.2 105 < Gr ≤ 107 | 0.075 | 1/3 |
103 < Gr ≤ 3.2 105 | 0.21 | 1/4 |
Gr ≤ 103 | Nu = 1 |
This is valid for gases at Ra δ< 108 and for water and liquids at Ra δ< 105. It gives the average Nu value as follows:
with:
where:
The exponent v indicates that the amount between the brackets is set to zero should it be negative.
This correlation gives the average Nu value as being the maximum of three values, Nu1, Nu2 and Nu3:
where:
This correlation is valid for:
Inclined chambers are encountered in solar applications, where in order to optimize the amount of energy collected, the absorber is required to be in an inclined position (see Figure 5.12).
For such chambers, the correlation to be used depends on the inclination, α, and on the ratio, , known as the aspect ratio.
For and 0 ≤ α ≤ 70° , we will use the following correlation (Hollands et al., 1976):
where:
The expressions of the type need to be set to zero if Raδcosα < 1708
The critical inclination depends on the aspect ratio . It is given in Table 5.2:
Table 5.2. Critical inclinations
Critical inclination αcrit | |
1 | 25° |
3 | 53° |
6 | 60° |
12 | 67° |
> 12 | 70° |
For and , the following correlation is recommended (Catton, 1978):
Two situations are to be considered depending on the value of αcrit determined by the aspect ratio (see Table 5.2):
Situation 1:
The following correlation is recommended (Catton, 1978):
Situation 2:
The following correlation is recommended (Arnold et al., 1975): Nu =1+(Nuα=90° −1)sinα.
This type of chamber is generally used as a solar collector in parabolic-trough collectors of the type used in the Noor Ouarzazate power station in Morocco. They consist of two coaxial tubes, one made of metal (the inner tube), which conveys the heat-transfer fluid, and the other made of glass, which serves as a protective jacket. The fluid to be found in the annular space is generally air.
The linear flux (flux per unit length) between the absorber tube and the glass tube is given by Raithby as a function of an effective thermal conductivity λeff and a geometric influence factor, F (Raithby and Hollands, 1975). Yet the expressions proposed by Raithby introduce complexities that can be avoided.
Indeed, the Raithby results can be placed in a simpler form, which directly gives the average Nusselt number, and therefore the average heat transfer coefficient, h, as follows:
where:
δ is the characteristic distance, defined by:
100 ≤ F Ra ≤ 1012 , where:
The physical properties of the fluid are taken at average temperature, :
The flux, for a tube length, L, is then obtained by the convection equation:
or:
For concentric spheres of diameters D1 and D2 and of temperatures θp1 and θp2, respectively, Raithby developed an expression of the flux as a function of an effective thermal conductivity, λeff, and of the geometric influence factor, F (Raithby and Hollands, 1975).
Yet, as with concentric cylinders, the expressions proposed introduce complexities that can be avoided.
Indeed, the results obtained by Raithby for concentric spheres can be placed in a simpler form, which directly gives the average Nusselt number, and therefore the average heat transfer coefficient, h, as follows:
where:
δ is the characteristic distance, defined by:
100 ≤ F Ra δ ≤ 104 , where:
The physical properties of the fluid are determined at arithmetic average temperature:
The flux is then obtained by the convection equation: ϕ = hπD1D2 (θp2 −θp1) or: .
I.e.:
The correlations presented above for calculating natural convection heat transfer coefficients are for general use. They are also dimensionless, enabling them to be used without any concern for problems that may be posed by units.
Specific situations can be encountered in practice, particularly when air is used as the heat-transfer fluid, as is the case with the heating or cooling of electronic components by means of natural convection. For such situations, specific correlations may be considered easier to use.
The following sections present this type of correlations. The user should be aware that these relations need to be employed with great caution with respect to the units considered for each of the magnitudes applied.
where:
where:
The heat transfer coefficient depends on the way air flows over the hot surface:
Where the various parameters are defined below:
where:
When circuit boards are cooled by natural convection in air, it is recommended to use the following correlation to determine the convective heat transfer coefficient between the boards and surrounding air:
where:
H is the height of the electronic board considered, expressed in meters;
Tp and T∞ are the board temperature and the ambient temperature far from the board, respectively, expressed in degrees.
For small electronic components or cables under natural convection in air, it is recommended to use the following correlation to determine the convective heat transfer coefficient between the components (or cables) and surrounding air:
where:
These relations are certainly helpful for rapid calculations to generate orders of magnitude of the convective heat transfer coefficients. Of course, for more accurate calculations, the dimensionless relations developed in the sections above are preferred. In addition, for calculations concerning electronic systems, the following section presents a methodology and calculations specific to heat sinks used for circuit-board systems.
During their operation, electronic components consume electric currents which, in addition to producing the desired effect, generate heat through the Joule effect. When the currents involved are significant (several amps or more), the amount of heat generated becomes so great that it can interfere with the normal operation of this component, and can even result in its disintegration, if the heat generated is not evacuated. This becomes critical when geometric constraints are imposed by design and/or ergonomic requirements, notably for embedded systems (US Department of Defense, 1992).
Thus, heat evacuation is an important parameter in the design of certain electronic systems to be used in, inter alia, telecommunications, audio equipment, avionics and computing. In a computer for example, the operation of several elements generates significant amounts of heat, particularly microprocessors (CPUs), graphics processors (GPUs), RAM, hard disks and power packs, etc. This is because these contain elementary electronic components whose operation is highly exothermic, namely, the integrated circuits that form part of most electronic assemblies. Indeed, microprocessors, such as Pentium™, Atom™ and Intelcore™, contain millions of transistors.
Natural convection is often sufficient in order to extract the heat produced by electronic equipment, but on the condition that it is boosted using accessories known as heat sinks (US Department of Defense, 1978). Figure 5.15 shows an example of a commercial heat sink designed to receive a transistor.
When assembled on the electronic components concerned, heat sinks enable an increase in the transfer area between the electronic component considered and the neighboring air.
Heat sinks are generally composed of a metal that is a good heat conductor (copper, aluminum, etc.). In the trade, it is mainly aluminum heat sinks that are encountered.
Assembly involves screwing the electronic component onto the heat sink, making sure to insert a thermal-conductive gasket between the component and the heat sink. The latter is generally composed of a silicone or silver paste, a mica pad (the latter breaking easily, however), or a soft silicone pad (this being more practical and cleaner than paste). The role of each of these pads is to ensure thermal conduction while providing good electrical insulation (Kraus, Bar-Cohen and Wative, 2006). They can therefore be considered as insulators from an electrical perspective, but as conductors from a thermal point of view.
Yet natural convection can prove insufficient in some electronic systems. This is the case when we use performance enhancing techniques such as overclocking, which consists of exceeding the operating frequency prescribed by the manufacturer for a given component. Indeed, in such situations, operation of the electronic circuits generates such large amounts of heat that natural convection is no longer sufficient to provide the cooling needed in order to ensure stable circuit operation (US Navy, 1955).
We then use cooling systems based on forced convection, which can even draw on heat evacuation through latent heat, as is the case with spray cooling (Shicheng, Yu, Liping and Wengsuan, 2014). In such systems, in addition to the heat sinks assembled on the different components of the electronic boards, we use a fan to ensure satisfactory air circulation and, as a result, better heat transfer coefficients. This is the case for microcomputers, where a fan is often assembled inside the central processing unit box.
Although several heat sink systems exist that are based on forced convection (air, water or even liquid-nitrogen system, as in extreme cooling), above all their design falls within that of finned heat sink sizing, covered in Volume 6 of this series. In this section we will focus on systems using natural convection as the latter nevertheless remain the most frequently used for common electronic systems.
There is a very wide range of heat sinks available commercially, which differ in terms of their shape, and therefore their heat transfer areas (see Figure 5.16). Yet, in supplier catalogs, the values of the transfer areas are not presented, nor are the transfer coefficient values (see example in Table 5.3).
The heat sinks are presented with a thermal resistance. Of course, the latter depends on the geometry and the transfer area offered by a given model. Note that depending on the model chosen, the value of the resistance can vary from around 1°C/W to more than a dozen °C/W.
Table 5.3. Examples of thermal resistances in electronic heat sinks
Model | RTh (°C/W) |
1 | 17.73 |
3 | 11.21 |
5 | 3.56 |
10 | 2.79 |
28 | 1.05 |
Let us nevertheless recall that this thermal resistance is above all determined based on the convection between the heat sink and the surrounding air, as the metal conduction resistance can be overlooked. It is of the form:
where:
We generally represent transfers between the heat sink and the surrounding air with an equivalent electronic circuit (see Figures 5.17 and 5.18), where:
With all thoroughness, each of the thermal resistances interposed between the electronic component and the air should be taken into account.
We then take into account the following thermal resistances:
As the resistances RJC and RCS are generally the lowest (conductive resistances), optimization of the overall resistance will require minimizing RSA; the product hS needs therefore to be maximized.
The choice of heat sink geometry determines the transfer area between the latter and the air. We generally opt for finned surfaces (see Figure 5.19).
For a vertical-fin heat sink, the natural convection heat transfer coefficient is determined based on Bar-Cohen and Rohsenow correlations for the two situations usually encountered: constant wall temperature and constant flux at the wall (Bar-Cohen and Rohsenow, 1984).
In general, the L and dimensions of the heat sink are determined by the space restrictions on the electronic board considered. When L is known, we can determine the maximum number of fins that can be put in place, namely:
However, the number of fins to be inserted effectively conditions the heat transfer coefficient, h. Indeed on a given base surface (A = x L) placing a large number of fins (n large) will lead to a low spacing δ. This means that we will need a large stacking of fins, leading to a poor air circulation and therefore to a lower heat transfer coefficient.
If, conversely, we opt for a smaller number of fins, air circulation will be facilitated and, as a result, the heat transfer coefficient will be larger.
Yet the number of fins, n, conditions the transfer area: S = 2n H.
Thus, when S increases, h is lower and conversely, when S is lower h is greater. The optimum heat transfer area is thus defined by seeking a compromise between the number of fins to be inserted on a given base surface ( x L), and the corresponding heat transfer coefficient, h.
It follows that δ admits an optimum that makes the hS product maximal.
Yet the different experiments conducted in the field have shown that this optimum depends on the natural convection heat transfer coefficient between the heat sink and the air.
In the case of heat transfer between a finned heat sink and air, we consider that energy transfers essentially via the fins and that the temperature of the latter is constant in steady state. The Nusselt number is obtained from the correlation presented below (Kraus, Bar-Cohen and Wative, 2006):
where the various parameters are defined as follows:
The optimum space between the fins is determined by Bar-Cohen and Rohsenow as follows:
where Ra𝓁 is the Rayleigh number, calculated taking as the characteristic length, namely:
It is also demonstrated that the product hδ* depends only on air heat conductivity, namely:
Once the heat transfer coefficient and the optimum number of fins are known, the evacuated flux is given by:
Or, substituting for δ* and n* and simplifying overlooking e in favor of δ.
For calculations (Ellison, 1984), we generally proceed in accordance with the flowchart presented in Figure 5.20.
In the design of the motherboard of a central processing unit which should receive a microprocessor, a space with dimensions has been reserved for assembly of the microprocessor/heat-sink system. By choice, it is decided to ensure cooling of this microprocessor by natural convection. To this end, we select a commercially available vertical-fin heat sink with thickness e and dimensions . The microprocessor’s optimum operating power and temperature are respectively ϕ0 and T*.
Data:
Table 5.4. Physical properties of air at different temperatures
(°C) | (kg. m-3) | Cp (J.kg-1.°C-1) | (W.m-1.°C-1) | Pa sec |
0 | 1.292 | 1,006 | 0.0242 | 1.72E-05 |
20 | 1.204 | 1,006 | 0.0257 | 1.81E-05 |
40 | 1.127 | 1,007 | 0.0272 | 1.90E-05 |
60 | 1.059 | 1,008 | 0.0287 | 1.99E-05 |
80 | 0.999 | 1,010 | 0.0302 | 2.09E-05 |
100 | 0.946 | 1,012 | 0.0318 | 2.18E-05 |
120 | 0.898 | 1,014 | 0.0333 | 2.27E-05 |
1) Calculating the optimum spacing between fins
The optimum fin spacing is given by: .
Where is defined using .
2) Optimum number of fins to be placed on the heat sink
The optimum number of fins to be planned for on the heat sink is given by:
3) Convection heat transfer coefficient between the heat sink and the air
4) Microprocessor operation
During the course of its operation at T*, the microprocessor will generate a power, ϕ0, which will need to be evacuated in order to ensure smooth operation. We then calculate the power that the available heat sink would be able to evacuate, ϕ*, and we compare it to ϕ0.
The heat sink will make it possible to evacuate a flux given by:
where: .
In this section we will be considering the assembly of a set of circuit boards on a rack placed in a box (see Figure 5.21).
We will assume that all of the boards are the same size, and that the rack gathering them together is of length L and width . The spacing between the different boards is constant (δ), but it needs to be such that heat evacuation is optimum. We will also assume that each board releases a constant flux density, φ.
Under these conditions, the temperature of the boards is not uniform; rather it increases with height, reaching its maximum value at H. The heat transfer occurs by natural convection.
The question here is, how many boards can we place on the board whilst assuring optimum heat evacuation? In other words, what is the optimum spacing, δ∗?
This spacing was determined through experimentation by analyzing different situations with different electronic boards and different spacings. This work led to the correlation of Bar-Cohen and Rohsenow:
where Raφ is the Rayleigh number relating to the flux density, φ, and using as the characteristic length:
Hence the optimum number of boards of thickness e to be assembled on a rack of length L is:
The Nusselt number that determines heat exchanges between electronic boards and neighboring air has also been established in experiments conducted by Bar-Cohen and Rohsenow:
where:
Air physical properties are taken at and Ta are the temperatures of the board and the air, respectively.
Knowing the heat transfer coefficient and the optimum number of electronic boards to place on the rack, we calculate the evacuated heat flux:
or alternatively, by overlooking e in favor of .
Often, we know the thermal flux released by the electronic boards, but we do not know the temperature that will be reached by the boards during operation. As a result, we do not directly know the physical properties of air, which are fundamental in determining the Rayleigh number. In a situation such as this, calculations are performed iteratively, as shown in the flowchart in Figure 5.22.
Putting in place an electronic surveillance system requires the assembly of k identical circuit boards on a rack that must be placed in a box. The rack presents length L and width .
For ease of installation’s sake, the spacing between the different boards, δ, will be uniform. Moreover, to avoid eventual fan noise, heat evacuation will only be by natural convection. The system should thus be designed so that this heat evacuation is sufficient to ensure safe and correct operation. Under these conditions the power generated by each board is ϕ*.
Data:
(°C) | (kg. m-3) | Cp (J.kg-1.°C-1) | (W.m-1.°C-1) | Pa sec |
30 | 1.173 | 1,006.7 | 0.0265 | 1.86E-05 |
35 | 1.135 | 1,006.9 | 0.0269 | 1.88E-05 |
40 | 1.127 | 1,007.0 | 0.0272 | 1.90E-05 |
45 | 1.065 | 1,007.3 | 0.0277 | 1.93E-05 |
50 | 1.086 | 1,007.5 | 0.0281 | 1.95E-05 |
55 | 1.066 | 1,007.8 | 0.0284 | 1.97E-05 |
60 | 1.059 | 1,008.0 | 0.0287 | 1.99E-05 |
1) Calculating the optimum spacing to be left between the boards
As the operating temperature is not known, we will proceed by successive iterations, starting from T0 = Ta = 30°C.
The results of these iterations are presented in Table 5.16. It follows that, for the present case, T0 does not have much influence on the calculations, where .
T°C | Tave °C | ρ kg. m-3 | CpJ.kg-1.°C-1 | λ W.m-1.°C-1 | μ Pa sec | ß°K-1 | Pr | Rai | δ*m | n* | h* W/m-°C | T°C |
30 | 30 | 1.173 | 1,006.7 | 0.0265 | 1.86E-05 | 3.30E-03 | 0.7066 | 2.47E+10 | 1.87E-03 | 4.89 | 375.88 | 31.27 |
40 | 35 | 1.135 | 1,006.9 | 0.0269 | 1.88E-05 | 3.19E-03 | 0.7037 | 2.15E+10 | 1.94E-03 | 4.88 | 360.95 | 31.33 |
50 | 40 | 1.127 | 1,007 | 0.0272 | 1.90E-05 | 3.10E-03 | 0.7034 | 1.98E+10 | 1.98E-03 | 4.88 | 353.72 | 31.35 |
60 | 45 | 1.065 | 1,007.3 | 0.0277 | 1.93E-05 | 3.00E-03 | 0.7018 | 1.63E+10 | 2.08E-03 | 4.87 | 333.13 | 31.44 |
70 | 50 | 1.086 | 1,007.5 | 0.0281 | 1.95E-05 | 2.92E-03 | 0.6992 | 1.59E+10 | 2.09E-03 | 4.87 | 334.01 | 31.43 |
We will retain T* = 31.3°C.
2) Number of boards
Based on the calculations above, we will retain k = 4 with a minimum spacing of 2 mm.
In general, when a fluid is subject to a forced convection, heat exchanges imposed by the fluid motion are so significant that the effects of natural convection are negligible. This is the case, in particular, for turbulent flow. When the flow is laminar, however, the contribution of natural convection can play an important role in overall heat transfer, particularly when the velocity and temperature profiles of forced convection are influenced by the effects of natural convection (Metais and Eckert, 1964). In this case, the convective heat transfer coefficients are substantially influenced and the expressions presented in the above sections are no longer applicable.
Thus, the correlations to be used in this case need to take into account both contributions: that of natural convection combined with the contribution of forced convection.
Moreover, given that natural convection depends on gravitational force, the correlations also need to consider the orientation of the pipe used (vertical or horizontal).
Martinelli and Boelter studied the scenario of natural convection superimposed onto a forced convection in vertical tubes (see Figure 5.23).
For situations where the fluid velocity is low, they developed the following correlation (Martinelli and Boelter, 1942):
where:
Table 5.7. Factors and for the Martinelli-Boelter correlation
Z | 0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2 |
F1 | 1 | 0.997 | 0.993 | 0.990 | 0.985 | 0.978 | 0.912 | 0.770 | 0.675 | 0.610 | 0.573 | 0 |
F2 | 1 | 0.952 | 0.910 | 0.869 | 0.828 | 0.787 | 0.588 | 0.403 | 0.320 | 0.272 | 0.212 | 0 |
The case where natural convection is superimposed onto forced convection in horizontal tubes was explored by Eubank and Proctor (see Figure 5.24).
It was demonstrated that this situation is only significant in the case of large temperature variations, Δθ, between the wall and the fluid; only in this case do the differences in density become sufficiently significant to modify the laminar currents of forced convection.
Thus, only under such conditions are the heat transfer coefficients affected by a perceptible influence of natural convection on forced convection.
The following correlation is then proposed (Eubank and Proctor, 1951):
where:
Gre is the Grashof number corresponding to the temperature difference, Δθe, between the wall and the fluid at the tube inlet:
All of the physical properties are taken at the fluid’s average temperature: θm;
In the case of bodies rotating at low velocity, natural convection is superimposed onto laminar flow transfer. Indeed, the rotation of the body induces a forced convection which is laminar in nature for low rotational velocities. Moreover, when the difference between the temperature of the medium in which the body is rotating and that of the wall of the latter is fairly significant, the differences in density of the fluid constituting the medium become noticeable and consequently have an influence on heat transfer.
For a cylinder with a wall temperature of θp, rotating at a velocity, ω, in a fluid (air, gas or any liquid) at average temperature, θm, the average Nusselt number is given by:
where:
For a disk of diameter D, at wall temperature θp, rotating at a velocity, ω, in the air, which is at average temperature θm, the average heat transfer coefficient can be estimated by:
where:
Although rarely encountered in practice, the case of spheres rotating in media at a different temperature is considered in this section.
Consider a sphere of temperature θp, rotating at a velocity, ω, in a fluid at average temperature θm (see Figure 5.27).
The average heat transfer coefficient depends on the Reynolds range considered:
In these correlations: