Heat and Mass Transfer

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 367–373 | Cite as

Experimental investigation of the effects of length to diameter ratio and nozzle number on the performance of counter flow Ranque–Hilsch vortex tubes

  • K. Dincer
  • S. BaskayaEmail author
  • B. Z. Uysal


In this experimental study, performance of counter flow type Ranque-Hilsch vortex tubes (RHVT), with a length to diameter ratio of 10, 15 and 18, were investigated with 2, 4, 6 nozzles. The measure of performance was chosen as the difference between the temperatures of hot output stream and cold output stream. The performances of RHVTs were experimentally tested by making use of velocity and temperature measurements of the input and output streams. It was determined that the difference between the temperatures of these streams, changed between 9 and 56 K. When all the results were assessed, it was concluded that the best performance was obtained when the ratio of vortex tube’s length to the diameter was 15 and the nozzle number was at least four, and the inlet pressure was as high as possible. Desired performance could be obtained by controlling the rate of the hot output stream.


Mass Flow Rate Stagnation Point Inlet Pressure Vortex Tube Counter Flow 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

List of symbols


specific heat at fixed pressure (J/(kg K)


diameter of cold outlet (m)


internal diameter of vortex tube (m)


length of vortex tube (m)

\( {\mathop m\limits^ \bullet }_{c} \)

mass flow rate of the cold stream (kg/s)

\( {\mathop m\limits^ \bullet }_{h} \)

mass flow rate of the hot stream (kg/s)

\( {\mathop m\limits^ \bullet }_{i} \)

mass flow rate of the inlet stream (kg/s)


number of nozzles


pressure (Pa)


cold flow pressure of vortex tube (Pa)


inlet pressure of vortex tube (Pa)


temperature (K)


temperature of cold stream (K)


temperature of hot stream (K)


temperature of inlet stream (K)


difference between the temperatures of output streams [=(T h − T c), K]


difference between temperature of cold flow and flow at the inlet [=(T i − T c), K]


difference between temperature of hot flow and flow at the inlet [=(T h − T i), K]

Greek symbols


fraction for cold flow (=m c/m i)


fraction for hot flow (=m h/m i)


angular velocity of cold stream (rad/s)


angular velocity of hot stream (rad/s)


specific heat ratio



Financial support of this study by the research fund of the Selcuk University under Grant No. 2002/124 is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Gao CM, Bosschaart KJ, Zeegers JCH (2005) Experimental study on a simple Ranque–Hilsch vortex tube. Cryogenics 45:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saidi MH, Valipour MS (2003) Experimental modeling of vortex tube refrigerator. Appl Therm Eng 23:1971–1980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dincer K (2005) Investigation of the performance of a counterflow Ranque–Hilsch vortex tube. Ph.D.Thesis. Gazi University Institute of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hartnett JP, Eckert ER (1957) Experimental study of the velocity and temperature distribution in a high-velocity vortex type-flow. Trans ACME 79:751–75Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gulyaev AI (1966) Vortex tubes and the vortex effect. Sov Phys Tech Phys 10(10):1441–1149Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stephan K, Lin S, Durst M, Huang F, Seher D (1983) An investigation of energy seperation in a vortex tube. Int. J Heat Mass Transf 26(3):341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Balmer RT (1988) Pressure-driven Ranque–Hilsch temperature seperation in liquids. J Fluids Eng 110:161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piralishvil SA, Ployaev VM (1996) Flow and thermodynamic characteristics of energy seperation in a double-circuit vortex tube an experimental investigation. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 12:399–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahlborn B, Camire J, Keller JU (1996) Low-pressure vortex tubes. Appl Phys 29:1469–1472Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saidi MH, Yazdi MR (1999) Exergy model of a vortex tube system with experimental result. Exergy 24:625–632Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahlborn BK, Gordon JM (2000) The vortex tube as a classic thermodynamic refrigeration cycle. J Appl Phys 88(6):3645–3653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahlborn B, Groves S (1997) Secondary flow in a vortex tube. Fluid Dynam Res 21(2):73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Behera UP, Paul J, Kasthurirengan S, Karunanithi R, Ram SN, Dinesh K, Jacob S (2005) CFD Anlysisis and experimental investigations towards optimizing the parameters of Ranque–Hilsch vortex tube. Int J Heat Mass Transf 48:1961–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moffat RJ (1982) Contributions to the theory of single-sample uncertainty analysis. J Fluids Eng 104:250–260Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moffat RJ (1985) Using uncertainty analysis in the planning of an experiment. J Fluids Eng 107:173–178Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abernethy RB, Benedict RP, Dowdell RB (1985) ASME measurement uncertainty. J Fluids Eng 107:161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kline SJ (1985) The purposes of uncertainty analysis. J Fluids Eng 107:153–160Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith Jr. RE, Wehofer S (1985) From measurement uncertainty to measurement communications, credibility, and cost control in propulsion ground test facilities. J Fluids Eng 107:165–172Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureSelcuk UniversityKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureGazi UniversityMaltepe, AnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureGazi UniversityMaltepe, AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations