The Influence of Orifice Size on the Mass Flow During Flash Boiling of HCFC-22 From a Small Vessel
Author:
Nutter D. W.1, O’Neal D. L.2
Affiliation:
1. Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701 2. Mechanical Engineering Department, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3123
Abstract
An experimental investigation was conducted to study the flash boiling process and the influence of the exiting restriction (orifice) size on the mass flow during flash boiling of HCFC-22 in a glass pressure vessel. An apparatus was built and a combination of tests were run with three interchangeable exiting orifices (1.59, 3.18, and 5.56 mm diameters). The flashed vapor was vented from a 1110-mL vessel to a large “semi-infinite” tank initially set at 120 kPa. Calculations revealed that the refrigerant flow exiting the vessel was choked, depending on the orifice size. Smaller orifices were choked longer, had slower depressurization rates, and reduced mass flow rates. The depressurization rates were greater for tests large offices which enabled the liquid to become more highly superheated, up to 41°C for one test case, and ultimately vaporize more refrigerant.
Publisher
ASME International
Subject
Geochemistry and Petrology,Mechanical Engineering,Energy Engineering and Power Technology,Fuel Technology,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
Reference26 articles.
1. Carey, V. P., 1992, Liquid-Vapor Phase Change Phenomena, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC. 2. Clegg
G. T.
, and PadakisG., 1986, “Rates of Evaporation Accompanying the Depressurization of a Pool of Saturated Freon-11,” Chemical Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 12, pp. 3037–3043. 3. Collier, J. G., 1981, Convective Boiling and Condensation, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2nd Edition, New York, NY. 4. Edwards
A. R.
, and O’BrienT. P., 1970, “Studies of Phenomena Connected With the Depressurization of Water Reactors,” The British Nuclear Energy Society, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 125–135. 5. Fauske
H. K.
, 1988, “Emergency Relief System Design for Reactive and Non-Reactive Systems: Extension of the DIERS Methodology,” Plant Operations Progress, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 153–158.
|
|