Based on the boundary condition of field engineering, numerical simulations of28 conditions of existing diffusers of 3 structure types were investigated by ComputationalFluid Dynamics software package, and there were ...Based on the boundary condition of field engineering, numerical simulations of28 conditions of existing diffusers of 3 structure types were investigated by ComputationalFluid Dynamics software package, and there were the problems of larger structure resistanceand lower diffusing efficiency of these diffusers by analysis of CFD results.Thestructure outlines of the energy-saving diffuser were constructed by the application ofstream function and potential function superimposing.On the basis of numerical simulationsof energy-saving diffusers of 5 area-enlarging ratios, structural resistances and diffusingefficiencies of 5 energy-saving diffusers were comparatively analyzed, and therange from 2.00 to 2.31 of the rational area-enlarging ratio of energy-saving diffusers wasderived.The optimization area-enlarging ratio of the energy-saving diffuser was presently2.28 through comparable analysis.From the above, the results show that the coefficient ofperformance of the energy-saving diffuser is better than 3 existing diffusers.展开更多
The main fan diffuser in a coal mine is an energy-recycling equipment with a dynamic energy loss for the main fan. Engineering practices and related researches show that the body structures of three types of diffusers...The main fan diffuser in a coal mine is an energy-recycling equipment with a dynamic energy loss for the main fan. Engineering practices and related researches show that the body structures of three types of diffusers are irrational. To solve the problem, an energy-saving diffuser is designed on the basis of the velocity potential theory. Under conditions of inlet velocity from 7 m/s to 32 m/s, 7 condition experiments using the energy-saving diffuser of 2.31 AER （area-enlarging ratio） and 5 condi- tion experiments using the energy-saving diffuser of 2.00 AER were conducted. Through a comparative analysis of the experi- ments, the results show that the COP （coefficient of performance） of the energy-saving diffuser of 2.31 AER is better than that of the energy-saving diffuser of 2.00 AER.展开更多
基金Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(50974060)the Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Education Department(09CY014)the Doctoral Fund of Hunan University of Science and Technology
文摘Based on the boundary condition of field engineering, numerical simulations of28 conditions of existing diffusers of 3 structure types were investigated by ComputationalFluid Dynamics software package, and there were the problems of larger structure resistanceand lower diffusing efficiency of these diffusers by analysis of CFD results.Thestructure outlines of the energy-saving diffuser were constructed by the application ofstream function and potential function superimposing.On the basis of numerical simulationsof energy-saving diffusers of 5 area-enlarging ratios, structural resistances and diffusingefficiencies of 5 energy-saving diffusers were comparatively analyzed, and therange from 2.00 to 2.31 of the rational area-enlarging ratio of energy-saving diffusers wasderived.The optimization area-enlarging ratio of the energy-saving diffuser was presently2.28 through comparable analysis.From the above, the results show that the coefficient ofperformance of the energy-saving diffuser is better than 3 existing diffusers.
文摘The main fan diffuser in a coal mine is an energy-recycling equipment with a dynamic energy loss for the main fan. Engineering practices and related researches show that the body structures of three types of diffusers are irrational. To solve the problem, an energy-saving diffuser is designed on the basis of the velocity potential theory. Under conditions of inlet velocity from 7 m/s to 32 m/s, 7 condition experiments using the energy-saving diffuser of 2.31 AER （area-enlarging ratio） and 5 condi- tion experiments using the energy-saving diffuser of 2.00 AER were conducted. Through a comparative analysis of the experi- ments, the results show that the COP （coefficient of performance） of the energy-saving diffuser of 2.31 AER is better than that of the energy-saving diffuser of 2.00 AER.
