¶óÆæÆ®¦¢Ä«Æä¦¢ºí·Î±×¦¢´õº¸±â
¾ÆÄ«µ¥¹Ì Ȩ ¸í»çƯ°­ ´ëÇבּ¸½Ç޹æ Á¶°æ½Ç¹« µ¿¿µ»ó°­ÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ÀüÅëÁ¤¿ø ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®
ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®

Çѱ¹°Ç¼³°ü¸®ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹µµ·ÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ç³»µðÀÚÀÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀÚ¿ø½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀܵðÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ

Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ / v.12, no.3, 2003³â, pp.107-113
°³·®Çü ¿­È¸¼ö ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ ¿­±³È¯ ¼º´É
( Heat Exchange Performance of Improved Heat Recovery System )
¼­¿ø¸í;À±¿ëö;±ÇÁø±Ù; °æ»ó´ëÇб³ ³ó¾÷½Ã½ºÅÛ °øÇкÎ(³ó¾÷»ý¸í°úÇבּ¸¿ø);°æ»ó´ëÇб³ ³ó¾÷½Ã½ºÅÛ °øÇкÎ(³ó¾÷»ý¸í°úÇבּ¸¿ø);°æ»ó´ëÇб³ ³ó¾÷½Ã½ºÅÛ °øÇкÎ(³ó¾÷»ý¸í°úÇבּ¸¿ø);
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â ¿Â½ÇÀÇ ¿Âdz½Ä ³­¹æ½Ã½ºÅÛ ¿¬Åë¿¡ ÀåÂøÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Æó¿­ ȸ¼ö±âÀÇ ¼º´É °³¼±À» ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ±â ¼³°èµÈ ¼¼ °¡Áö ¿­±³È¯ ÀåÄ¡¿Í ±âÁ¸ÀÇ ÀåÄ¡¿¡¼­ ¿­±³È¯ ¸éÀû°ú ÆÄÀÌÇÁÀÇ µÎ²² ¹× °ø±âÈ帧 ¹æÇâÀ» °³·®ÇÑ »õ ¿­±³È¯ ÀåÄ¡¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¿­È¸¼ö ¼º´ÉÀ» ½ÇÇèÀûÀ¸·Î ºñ±³ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±× °á°ú ±âÁ¸ÀÇ ¿­ ±³È¯ÀåÄ¡ÀÎ AÇü, BÇü ¹× CÇüÀÇ ¿­È¸¼ö ¼º´ÉÀº µ¿ÀÏ ¼ÛdzÀüÀÔ¿¡¼­ °¢°¢ 42.2%, 40.6% ¹× 54.4% Á¤µµ¿´À¸³ª , »õ·Î °³·®µÈ DÇüÀº 69.2%·Î½á °¡Àå ÇöÀúÈ÷ ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¿­È¸¼ö¿ë °ø±âÀÇ È帧¹æÇâ º¯È­¿¡ µû¸¥ ¿­È¸¼ö ¼º´É °³¼±È¿°ú (AÇü ´ëºñ BÇü)´Â ¾ø´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³ª ÀûÁ¤ ¼Ûdz±â ¿ë·®À̶ó¸é Á÷¼±ÇüÀÌ °ø±âÀÇ È帧¹æÇâ 180${circ}C$ ±¼Àý½ÃŰ´Â Çì¾îÇÉÇüº¸´Ù È¿°úÀûÀÎ °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÈ´Ù. °á±¹ ¿­È¸¼ö ¼º´ÉÀº ¿­È¸¼ö ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ ¿­±³È¯ ¸éÀû°ú ¿­±³È¯ ÆÄÀÌÇÁÀÇ µÎ²² ¹× dz¼Ó¿¡ Å©°Ô Á¿ìµÇ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. µû¶ó¼­, ¿­±³È¯ ÆÄÀÌÇÁÀÇ ³»±¸¼º µî À» °í·ÁÇÏ¿© ±â´ÉÇÑ ÇÑ ¹üÀ§ ³»¿¡¼­ ¿­ ±³È¯¸éÀûÀ» Áõ´ë½ÃŰ°Å³ª ¿­±³È¯ ÆÄÀÌÇÁÀÇ µÎ²²¸¦ ¾Î°Ô Çϰí dz¼ÓÀ» Áõ´ë½ÃŰ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¿­È¸¼ö ¼º´É °³¼±È¿°ú¿Í Á÷°áµÊÀ» ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¼Ûdz±â ¿ë·®ÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÀÌ»óÀ¸·Î Å« °æ¿ì, ¼ÒºñÀü·ÂÀÌ ¸¹°Ô µÇ´Â µîÀÇ ¹®Á¦°¡ Àֱ⠶§¹®¿¡ ÀûÁ¤¿ë·® ¹× Á¦Ç°ÀÇ ¾ÈÁ¤¼ºÀ» °í·ÁÇÏ¿© ¼±ÅÃÇØ¾ß ÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÇ¾ú´Ù.
This study was carried out to improve the performance of pre-developed heat recovery devices attached to exhaust-gas flue connected to combustion chamber of greenhouse heating system. Four different units were compared in the aspect of heat recovery performance; A-, B-, and C-types are exactly the same with the old ones reported in previous studies. D-type newly developed in this experiment is mainly different with the old ones in its heat exchange area and tube thickness. But airflow direction(U-turn) and pipe arrangement are similar with previous three types. The results are summarized as follows; 1. System performances in the aspect of heat recovery efficiency were estimated as 42.2% for A-type, 40.6% for B-type, 54.4% for C-type, and 69.2% for D-type. 2. There was not significant improvement of heat recovering efficiency between two different airflow directions inside the heat exchange system. But considering current technical conditions, straight air flow pattern has more advantage than hair-pin How pattern (U-turn f1ow). 3. The main factors influencing on heat recovery efficiency were presumably verified to be the total area of heat exchange surface, the thickness of ail-flow pipes, and the convective heat transfer coefficient influenced by airflow velocity under the conditions of allowable pipe durability and safety. 4. Desirable blower capacity for each type of heat recovery units were significantly different to each other. Therefore, the optimum airflow capacity should be determined by considering in economic aspect of electricity required together with the optimum heat recovery performance of given heat recovery systems.
 
Ű¿öµå
¿­È¸¼ö±â;¿­±³È¯±â;¿Â½Ç;¿¡³ÊÁö º¸Á¸;heat recovering device;heat exchanger;greenhouse;energy conservation;
 
»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸÁö / v.12, no.3, 2003³â, pp.107-113
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1229-4675
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200315875836549)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø
¸ñ·Ïº¸±â
ȸ»ç¼Ò°³ ±¤°í¾È³» ÀÌ¿ë¾à°ü °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸Ãë±Þ¹æÄ§ Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ÇѰè¿Í ¹ýÀû°íÁö À̸ÞÀÏÁÖ¼Ò ¹«´Ü¼öÁý °ÅºÎ °í°´¼¾ÅÍ
   

ÇÏÀ§¹è³ÊÀ̵¿