首页|Multi-round optimization of an ejector with different mixing chamber geometries at various liquid volume fractions of inlet fluids
Multi-round optimization of an ejector with different mixing chamber geometries at various liquid volume fractions of inlet fluids
扫码查看
点击上方二维码区域，可以放大扫码查看
原文链接
NSTL
Elsevier
The performance of the ejector relies on the geometrical parameters and the fluid phase state. Although the optimization of geometries of the ejector has been conducted in previous studies, the influence of different optimization sequence of geometric parameters was ignored in previous literatures. To close the knowledge gap, the goal of this paper is to investigate whether different optimization sequences affect the ejector performance and whether the ejector performance is the same under different optimization sequences after multiple rounds of optimization. Therefore, three geometrical parameters, namely the constant-pressure mixing chamber length (L-pm), the constant-area mixing chamber length (L-am) and diameter (D-am), are selected for the optimization study; besides, multi-round optimization with six optimization sequences of these three parameters is conducted by CFD simulations under four different combinations of primary flow liquid volume fraction (LVF1) and sec-ondary flow liquid volume fraction (LVF2) (LVF1 = 0 plus LVF2 = 0, LVF1 = 0 plus LVF2 = 0.06, LVF1 = 0.06 plus LVF2 = 0, LVF1 = 0.06 plus LVF2 = 0.06) for the first time. The results showed that: (1) for each LVF combi-nation, the three optimal parameters and corresponding maximum ER produced by one round optimization of six different optimization sequences are evidently different; (2) after multiple rounds of optimization, for LVF1 = 0 plus LVF2 = 0 or LVF1 = 0.06 plus LVF2 = 0.06, ultimate optimal geometrical parameters and maximum ER are the same with each other for six optimization sequences, however, for LVF1 = 0 plus LVF2 = 0.06 or LVF1 = 0.06 plus LVF2 = 0, each of them still has two different ultimate maximum ER; (4) for those four combinations, different sequence takes different optimization rounds, recommended sequences are D-am -> L-am -> L-pm (S6), L-pm -> L-am -> D-am (S1) or L-pm -> D-am -> L-am (S2), and L-am -> L-pm -> D-am (S3) and D-am -> L-am -> L-pm, respectively; and (5) the ultimate optimal parameters and maximum ER in four combinations differ significantly because they are largely dependent on the inlet fluid states.
NSTL
Elsevier
