Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43: 207–215

DOI 10.1007/s00231-006-0086-x

O R I GI N A L

H. Herwig Æ F. Kock

Direct and indirect methods of calculating entropy generation rates

in turbulent convective heat transfer problems

Received: 19 May 2004 / Accepted: 19 January 2005 / Published online: 18 March 2006
 Springer-Verlag 2006

Abstract Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solutions e Turbulent dissipation rate (m2/s3)
of turbulent convective heat transfer problems based on g Viscosity (kg/ms)
the mass, momentum and energy conservation principle k Thermal conductivity (W/mK)
provide all information to calculate the entropy pro- U Dissipation of mech. energy (W/m3)
duction rate in such a transfer process. It can be deter- UH Loss of mech. energy (WK/m3)
mined in the post processing phase of a CFD . Density (kg/m3)
calculation. Two methods are discussed in detail which SPRO, Entropy production rate (W/K m3)
can provide the information about the entropy produc- i
tion with different degrees of accuracy.

1 Introduction
List of symbols
A Area (m2) Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) over the past two
cf Skin friction coefficient decades has become state of the art in thermal engi-
cp Specific heat (J/kg K) neering like in heat exchanger design. Pressure drop and
D Diameter (m) heat transfer predictions often are accurate even in
L Length (m) complex geometries, though a critical interpretation of
m_ Mass flux (kg/s) the results is always mandatory, see for example Casey
Nu Nusselt number and Wintergerste (2000) as well as Hölling and Herwig
Pr Prandtl number (2004). In standard versions commercial CFD-codes
q Heat flux density (W/m2) only take into account the first law of thermodynamics
Re Reynolds number which is the basis for all types of energy equations
R Gas constant (m2/s2 K) incorporated in the programs.
s Specific entropy (J/kg K) Predicting an efficient use of energy in thermal sys-
T Temperature (K) tems like compact heat exchangers or whole power
t Time (s) plants, however, can only be achieved if also the second
u, v, w Velocity components (m/s) law of thermodynamics is accounted for, since the
V Volume (m3) amount of available work (also called exergy) depends
x, y, z Cartesian coordinates on the amount of entropy produced, see Bejan (1996).
Therefore, a thermal apparatus producing less entropy
by irreversibility destructs less available work (produc-
ing less anergy). This increases the total efficiency of a
Greek symbols thermal system. The amount of entropy generated can
a Thermal diffusivity (m2/s) be directly used as an efficiency parameter of the system,
at Turbulent thermal diffusivity (m2/s) see for example Bejan (1978).
For example, a heat transfer apparatus with small
cross sections often encounters small temperature gra-
H. Herwig (&) Æ F. Kock dients and therefore small entropy production by heat
Technische Thermodynamik, TU Hamburg-Harburg,
21073, Hamburg, Germany
transfer (For a fixed Nusselt number Nu=qw D/kDT
E-mail: h.herwig@tu-harburg.de characteristic temperature differences are DT  D!).
208
However, due to the large pressure drop of this config-
uration there will be a large entropy production rate by
dissipation. Since, however, both effects (heat transfer
and pressure drop) have been linked to one single
quantity (entropy production), the overall performance
can be estimated by the total entropy production rate of
the apparatus which should be as small as possible.
If we had not this single quantity, two completely
different parameters would serve to find out, for exam-
ple, if an increase of heat transfer accompanied by an
increase of pressure drop is an increase with respect to
the overall performance of the apparatus. This, however,
would be like comparing apples and pears.
Therefore it would be welcome by many users of
commercial CFD software if these codes could also
determine the entropy production in momentum and
heat transfer problems of technical interest, i.e. for
complex turbulent flows. Before this can be achieved one
should develop a general strategy how to get the infor-
mation about the total entropy production ‘‘as cheap’’
as possible but also as precise as necessary. Two different
strategies are the scope of our study.
2 A short remark on entropy
The starting point for all kinds of entropy analysis is the
second law of thermodynamics which defines and
mathematically describes the fundamentally important
quantity called entropy. This quantity, despite its
importance is not very popular. The main reason is that
people are confronted with it in a rather late stage of
their individual learning process. They then often over-
see the fact that a question like ‘‘what is entropy?’’ na-
ively assumes it could be answered by just linking it to
one already known other quantity. Instead, ‘‘entropy’’
means much more: an own ‘‘entity’’ with complex rela-
tions to other physical quantities/aspects, like tempera-
ture and different forms of energy as well as their
conversion, see for example Herwig (2000).
Having that in mind, determining entropy generation
in complex flows is nevertheless straightforward.
3 How to determine entropy in a flow field?
The entropy in a flow field is a state variable that in its
specific form s, i.e. entropy per unit mass (J/kgK), has a
balance equation which for a single-phase incompress-
ible flow reads, see for example Spurk (1989):
Here the two entropy production terms are marked by
grey shaded boxes with the two functions U and UH
given later. The unknown in this equation is s, provided
the velocity and temperature field can be determined
from the basic equations of mass, momentum and en-
ergy conservation which are incorporated in CFD-codes
anyway.
However, there is no need to solve (1) in order to
determine s in the field, since s for single phase fluids is a
function s(T, p) of temperature and pressure only. They
both are known in a flow field once a conventional
solution (based on mass, momentum and energy con-
servation) is found! In that sense the entropy s can be
looked upon as a post-processing quantity that can be
determined, once the flow- and temperature fields are
known! But, does it mean that we also find the entropy
production as a post-processing quantity? The answer is
‘‘yes’’, the procedure, however, is not quite trivial since
we are dealing with turbulent flows.
Equation (1) has to be time-averaged in order to find
an equation for the time mean entropy s: According to
the Reynolds averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) approach
for turbulent flows, prior to time-averaging the equation
all quantities are split into time-mean and fluctuating
parts, i.e., s ¼ s þ s0 ; u ¼ u þ u0 ; . . . and inserted into
(1). The time-averaged equation then reads
After time-averaging of the equation new unknown
terms emerge (closure problem). On the right hand side
of (2) a group of terms is shown explicitly (coming from
the left hand side and therefore has the minus sign).
More terms will emerge when the time-averaging of the
other terms on the right hand side will be performed
explicitly (so far it is only formally indicated by the bars
over these terms).
4 How to determine entropy production in a flow field?
There are basically two ways how entropy production
can be determined. For laminar flows, for which (1)
holds, either
• The terms U/T and UH/T2 are determined in detail and
are then calculated directly, or
• The entropy production [grey boxes in (1)] is calcu-
lated by equating it to the rest of the equation and
then that rest (from the known temperature and
pressure field) is calculated.
In what follows, the first option will be called the
direct method the second one the indirect method of
determining entropy production in a flow field.
For turbulent flows the situation is slightly different
since additional turbulent terms appear in the balance
equation, which now is (2), due to the time-averaging
process.
In the direct method U=T and UH =T 2 have to be
calculated, which is complicated due to additional terms
 209

that appear after the time-averaging process is carried 3. SPRO;C : entropy production rate by heat conduction
out as shown next. The indirect method is applicable with mean temperature gradients,
only when either all additional turbulent terms in (2) 4. SPRO;C0 : entropy production rate by heat conduction
outside the grey marked production terms are known or with fluctuating temperature gradients.
when they can be neglected. In all cases that can be
found in the open literature they are neglected when the
indirect method is used. In a rational approach the additional turbulent terms
The first term to be calculated in the direct method, SPRO;D0 and SPRO;C0 cannot be neglected but should be
ðU=T Þ; describes entropy production by dissipation subject to turbulence modelling.
which in a turbulent flow has two parts: viscous dissi-
pation and turbulent dissipation (dissipation due to
turbulent fluctuations of the velocity). With 5 The direct method
ðU=T Þ ¼ SPRO;D þ SPRO;D0 they are:
" (      ) In the direct method the entropy production terms are
l u 2
@ @v 2  2
@w calculated in the post-processing phase of a CFD cal-
SPRO; D ¼ 2 þ þ culation. That means, they are determined by using the
T @x @y @z
known field quantities (time-mean) velocity and tem-
 2  2
@u @v @u @w  perature.
þ þ þ þ ð3Þ Two of the four terms, SPRO;D and SPRO;C ; according
@y @x @z @x
  # to (3) and (5), respectively, can be determined immedi-
@v @ w  2 ately. The other two, SPRO;D0 and SPRO;C 0 ; first have to be
þ þ ;
@z @y related to the known field quantities through turbulence
" (   0 2  0 2 ) modelling.
l @u0 2 @v @w In Kock (2003) and Kock and Herwig (2004a, b)
SPRO; D0 ¼ 2 þ þ
T @x @y @z turbulence models are proposed that relate these terms
 0   0  to the turbulent dissipation rate e and the mean tem-
@u @v0 2 @u @w0 2 perature T : Since in almost all turbulence models (ke,
þ þ þ þ kx, Reynolds stress, ...) the dissipation rate e is in-
@y @x @z @x
 0  # cluded, this kind of modelling turbulent entropy gener-
@v @w0 2 ation is generally applicable. The two models are
þ þ : ð4Þ
@z @y .e
SPRO;D0 ¼ ; ð7Þ
Here T¢ in the denominator appears only in higher order T
at
terms when expanded into a series and therefore is ne- SPRO;C 0 ¼ SPRO;C : ð8Þ
a
glected.
The first group represents entropy production by Since now all four entropy production terms can be
dissipation in the mean flow field, often referred to as calculated, applying the direct method should be straight
direct dissipation. The second group of terms then is the forward. I turns out, however, that numerical problems
so-called indirect or turbulent dissipation. arise.
The second term, UH =T 2 ; describes entropy produc- In Fig. 1 the distribution of SPRO;C in the cross sec-
tion by heat transfer and for turbulent flows again has tion of a heated pipe is shown for a laminar and a tur-
two parts: entropy production due to time mean tem- bulent flow. In the turbulent case, due to the steep
perature gradients and production due to gradients of gradients of T close to the wall, entropy production
the temperature fluctuations. With UH =T 2 ¼ SPRO;C þ accumulates in this part of the flow field, c.f. (5) for
SPRO;C 0 they are SPRO;C : In order to resolve it the numerical grid would
" 2  2  2 # have to be refined unacceptably in this region. However,
k @T @T @T this problem can be circumvented by finding wall func-
SPRO;C ¼ 2 þ þ ; ð5Þ
T @x @y @z tions for the entropy production terms.
"   0 2  0 2 # These wall functions are analytical expressions for
k @T 0 2 @T @T SPRO;i ði ¼ D; D0 ; C; C 0 Þ in the immediate vicinity of the
SPRO;C 0 ¼ 2 þ þ : ð6Þ
T @x @y @z wall that can be found from asymptotic considerations
(Re fi ¥, r fi 1). In these functions the universal
Thus, for turbulent flows four groups of entropy pro- character of turbulent flows close to a wall is expressed,
duction terms appear in the time-averaged entropy bal- like in the famous law of the wall that states a loga-
ance equation: rithmic velocity profile in the near wall region of a forced
1. SPRO;D : entropy production rate by direct dissipa- convection flow field. These wall functions are given in
tion, the Appendix, details of their derivation can be found in
2. SPRO;D0 : entropy production rate by indirect (tur- Kock (2003). With these functions the numerical grid
bulent) dissipation, needs no extreme refinement close to the wall.
210
Fig. 1 Numerical calculation of SPRO;C for fully developed laminar and turbulent heated pipe flow with qw=const. Details in Kock (2003)
Next, two examples should illustrate the benefits of
calculating entropy production in heat transfer design
problems.
5.1 Example 1: optimum diameter
This example is adopted from Bejan (1996). His solution
of the problem will be given in the next section where the
indirect method is described. Figure 2 shows the prob-
lem: A fully developed turbulent pipe flow of water is
heated over a length L by a constant wall heat flux
density until its caloric mean temperature is raised from
300 to 310 K. This, however, can be performed with
various values of D and L, provided the heat transfer
surface pLD remains the same (in this example 0.42 m2).
The question arises, whether there is an optimum value
of D which corresponds to a minimum entropy pro-
duction. This can be expected since for D fi 0 the
pressure drop and therefore SPRO,D increases ad infini-
tum and for D fi ¥ this happens to the temperature
differences in a cross section and thus for SPRO,C.
Figure 3 shows numerical results of the direct method
applied to seven different values of D. Instead of D the
Reynolds number Re ¼ 4m=pgD_ is used in the diagram.
Since 4m=pg
_ is constant in this example we have D 
Re1 so that small Reynolds numbers correspond to
large diameters. There appears a definite minimum of
entropy production at about Re=9.104. Here, the en-
Fig. 2 Fully developed pipe
flow of water (cp=4.2 kJ/kgK)
with a heating section of length
L T1 T2: caloric mean
temperatures
tropy production is an order of magnitude smaller than
for example at Re=2.105.
5.2 Example 2: optimum turbulence promoters
A typical example of a complex convective heat transfer
situation is given in Fig. 4, which shows a pipe of
diameter D=25.4 mm and a length of 27.5 D. The tur-
bulent flow of air is heated in the midsection of length
L=15.5 D by imposing a constant wall heat flux density
qw ¼ 8; 200 W=m2 : In order to increase the heat transfer
performance of the pipe, a twisted tape (turbulence
promoter) is inserted in the heating section. This leads to
a considerable increase of the Nusselt number (Nu) but
also increases the pressure loss coefficient cf of the whole
device. This tape cuts the circular cross section into two
half circles which spiral along the axis of the pipe. The
slope of this spiralling is measured in terms of D/LT,
where LT is the length over which the azimutal angle of
the tape changes by 360.
The wanted increase in heat transfer and the un-
wanted increase in pressure loss are shown in Fig. 4 for
different slopes of the twisted tape, i.e. for different
values of D/LT. Experimental results from Zhang et al.
(1997) compare quite well with numerical calculations
performed with the finite volume code CFX and a
standard high Reynolds number ke turbulence model.
Since both dimensionless parameters, Nu and cf, in-
 211

Nusselt Number is increased by 40%, but at the expense

of an 400% increase in cf!
Both effects, the wanted and the unwanted, can
simultaneously be evaluated by calculating the overall
entropy production of the system. If SPRO increases
through a certain change in the system this change is
counterproductive, otherwise it is beneficial in the sense
that less entropy production means a reduced loss of
available work.
Figure 5 now can give a clear answer whether it
makes sense to insert the tape or not and which value of
D/LT is the best:
• Yes, it makes sense since the overall entropy produc-
tion is reduced for a certain parameter range of D/LT.
• D/LT should be  0.18 since then the decrease in en-
tropy production is the strongest, being nearly 8%, i.e.
saves that percentage of exergy (available work).
Fig. 3 Direct method: Numerical integration of (3), (5), (7) and (8)
over the control volume (length L, diameter D)

crease monotonically for increasing D/LT, there is no 6 The indirect method

optimum discernable. And, a more fundamental ques-
tion arises (without answer, so far): Should one insert Entropy production in turbulent flow with heat transfer
the twisted tape, since for example for D/LT=0.2 the according to (2) is the sum of U=T and UH =T 2 ; i.e.:

Fig. 4 Heat transfer augmentation by an inserted twisted tape; Re=um D/m=5.1·104; Nu0, cf0: no tape inserted. Experimental data from
Zhang et al. (1997)
212

Since one is interested in the total entropy pro-

duction of the flow field, (9) must be integrated over
the entire flow domain. This corresponds to the global
balance shown in Fig. 6 which can be cast into the
following form ( w
 : time mean velocity perpendicular
to a surface A):

Here, the turbulent flux is written in terms of a turbulent

Fig. 5 Total entropy production for various slopes of the twisted entropy flux vector ð!
q =T Þt which could be modelled if necessary,
tape in a heated pipe flow; SPRO,0: no tape inserted i.e.
 0 0 
  @u s
@s . þ    ¼ div ð!
q =T Þt : ð11Þ
SPRO ¼ U=T þ UH =T 2 ¼ .  @x
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} @t
PRODUCTION |fflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflffl} Again, entropy production [left hand side of (10)] can be
CONVECTION determined by calculating the right hand side of (10).
 div! q =T This can be done whenever the turbulent flux term can
|fflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflffl} be determined or neglected.
MOLECULAR FLUX In all case studies that can be found in the literature it
 0 0 
@u s has been neglected. This, however, is only justified in
þ .   : ð9Þ
@x special situations as will be demonstrated by comparing
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} such approximate solutions of the indirect method to the
TURBULENT FLUX full solutions by the direct method given in the previous
On the right hand side the last term represents a tur- section.
bulent entropy flux analogous to the turbulent heat flux
in the energy equation (which often is modelled by 6.1 Example 1, resumed
introducing a turbulent or eddy thermal diffusivity).
Indeed, this is the only important additional turbulent Bejan (1996) solved this problem by the indirect method,
extra term on the right hand side since time-averaging of neglecting the turbulent flux ˆ (which appears at the
the molecular flux term div! q =T does not lead to further inlet A1 and outlet A2) completely and accounting for
terms on our level of approximation. Therefore, the lo- the molecular flux ´ only at the wall (i.e. at A0 in Fig. 6
cal rate of entropy production [left hand side of (9)] can but not at A1 and A2 where these terms are also non-
be calculated by determining the right hand side when zero). With these approximations it follows for the total
there is a turbulence model for the turbulent entropy flux entropy generation rate (in W/K), details in Kock
or when it is neglected. (2003):

Fig. 6 Flow domain with A0

volume V, impermeable wall
A0, inlet A1 and outlet A2. The
numbers refer to the terms in
(10) A2
V
0 2 3 4

1 3 4
A1

3
 213

neglected by assuming a constant Nusselt number, may

become a strong effect (covered by the direct method).
Figure 7 shows exactly this trend. On the other hand
this example for Re fi ¥ may serve as a test case for
the solution by the direct method described in the pre-
vious section.

6.2 Example 2, resumed

With the indirect method we make the same assump-

Fig. 7 Comparing the indirect method Bejan (1996) to the results
of the direct method. The two asymptotes in the double-log plot
have the gradient +5.75 and 1.8 according to (13)
Z Z Z 4 when A0 is the heat transfer surface
8m_ cp lnðT2 =T1 Þ q2w D2 pL
SPRO dV ¼  cf þ Nu1 :
p3 .2 D6 q2w kT1 T2
ð12Þ
which, with the empirical relations cf=0.316 Re1/5 and
Nu=0.023 Re0.8 Pr0.4 for fully developed turbulent pipe
flow, can be cast into the general form
Z Z Z
SPRO dV ¼ C1 Re5:75 þ C2 Re1:8 ; ð13Þ
V
where C1, C2 follow from (12).
Since the neglected terms in the cross sections A1 and
A2 according! to (10) are proportional to the!axial heat
flux density q and according to Fouriers law q  dT =dx
holds
!
with dT/dx  L1  D  Re1 we finally get
q  Re1 : Therefore, the approximations (neglecting
certain terms) are justified for large Reynolds numbers
(if at all). Deviations from the full solution of the direct
method thus can be expected for small Reynolds
numbers, even more since small Reynolds numbers
mean short pipes in which the thermal entrance effect,
tions as in Example 1: the turbulent as well as the
molecular flux over the entrance and exit cross sections
are neglected, the entropy flux associated with the heat
flux qw across the wall is accounted for. The convection
terms  in (10) can be evaluated when the entropy s of
air is assumed to be that of an ideal gas, i.e.
T2 p2
s2  s1 ¼ cp ln  R ln : ð14Þ
T1 p1
With these assumptions the balance according to (10) is,
Z Z Z Z
p2 T2 qw
SPRO dV ¼ mR_ ln þ mc _ p ln  dA :
V p 1 T 1 A0 w T
|fflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflffl} |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
dissipation conduction
ð15Þ
Assuming that the temperature change due to viscous
heating and gas expansion is small compared to the
temperature increase by heat transfer we can separate
the entropy production rate into the a part due to
SPRO,D (dissipation) and one due to heat conduction
SPRO,C (conduction) as indicated in (15). A further
partitioning into effects by mean and fluctuating parts,
however, is not possible. In Fig. 8 both parts of the
entropy production rate are shown separately for the
eleven parameter values of D/LT that were calculated by
the direct method in the previous section. Whereas the
dissipation part of entropy production deviates by about
15% the heat transfer entropy production is off by
almost 50%. Obviously in this highly turbulent situation
and especially with flow and temperature fields that are

Fig. 8 Comparing the indirect

method, (15), to the results of
the direct method
214

very different in the vicinity of the entrance compared to Table 1 Constants in the wall functions for
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi SPRO;D and
SPRO;C : Ts ¼ qw =.cp u2s ; Ecs ¼ u2s =cp Ts ; us ¼ sw /.
the exit, the flux terms ´ and ˆ in the general balance
equation (10) are important and must not be neglected.

7 Discussion

Two methods of accounting for entropy production in

the post processing phase of a CFD solution for tur-
bulent convective heat transfer problems have been
introduced.
• The direct method, based on (3), (5), (7) and (8). With
these equations the four local parts of entropy pro-
duction can be determined. Integration of these field
quantities over the whole flow domain results in the
overall entropy production rate in W/K. Approxi-
mations are involved in the turbulence modelling of
SPRO;D0 and SPRO;C 0 ; in finding the wall functions and
in integration by finite volumes.
• The indirect method, based on the volume integrated
time-averaged entropy balance equation (10). Though
this equation is exact, its application for practical
problems involves several approximations. Almost
always the entropy flux terms across the inlet and
outlet boundaries are neglected (since unknown).
Further approximations are involved when inlet and
outlet quantities are assumed to be mean values in the þ
The wall distances yln þ
D and yln C  correspond to the
cross sections, neglecting their actual profiles. intersection of the asymptotic representation of the
velocity and temperature profiles, respectively, for y+ fi
Obviously the direct method is superior and should be 0 and y+ fi ¥. They are yln þ þ
 ¼ 11:6 and yln C
D  ¼ 12:1 for
applied in complex flow situations. And, there is one þ
Pr = 0.71 and yln C ¼ 7:3 for Pr = 5, respectively.
more important advantage of this method: From the In order to find a representative value of the entropy
direct method we get the information how the overall production in the wall adjacent volume of finite volume
entropy production is distributed between the four single approach, (16) is integrated over this volume. At a dis-
mechanisms ðD;  C 0 Þ; an information which the
 D0 ; C;
tance y+ mp (mp: midpoint, centre of the volume) we thus
indirect method cannot provide. It may, however, help get:
to understand the physics of the complex process and be  rffiffiffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffiffiffi 
important in finding ways to reduce the overall entropy þ 1 AD p þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
SPRO;  ¼  erf b  2y
D mp  b a
production in a technical device. Dmp þ
2ymp 2 bD D D
One should never forget: the entropy production  
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
rate times ambient temperature is the rate at which  erf  bD aD ;
exergy is destroyed. It is measured in Watt and has to
be paid for. ð17Þ
 rffiffiffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffiffiffi q ffiffiffiffiffi
ffi 
þ 1 AC p þ
SPRO; 
Cmp
¼ þ
 erf bC 2ymp  bC aC
2ymp 2 bC
 qffiffiffiffiffiffi 
8 Appendix
 erf  bC aC :
þ þ
8.1 Wall functions for SPRO;  and SPRO;C
D 
ð18Þ
The general form we assume for these two wall functions
with respect to the mean profiles is
h i þ
8.2 Wall functions for SPRO; þ
and SPRO;
þ 2 
SPRO;i ¼ Ai exp bi ðy þ  ai Þ ; i ¼ D;
 C: ð16Þ D0 C0

These wall functions are found by patching the asymp-

In Kock (2003) the constants are determined from totic representations at their intersection points
asymptotic considerations (y+ fi 0) and DNS data. þ þ
yln  and yln C
D  ; respectively.
They are listed Table 1.
 215

After an integration over the wall adjacent finite vol- Bejan A (1996) Entropy generation minimization. CRC Press, Boca
ume the midpoint values for the entropy production are Raton
Casey M, Wintergerste T (eds) (2000) ERCOFTAC Special Interest
 Group on Quality and Trust in Industrial CFD-Best Practice
þ 1 Tw þ
SPRO;D0 mp ¼ þ 0:15Ecs yln Guidelines, ERCOFTAC Publications (http://www.ercof-
2ymp Ts D tac.org)

Herwig H (2000) Was ist Entropie? Eine Frage–Zehn Antworten.
Tw2 1 Ts  þ

Forschung im Ingenieurwesen 66:74–78
þEcs 2  log 1 þ logð2ymp Þ þ CDþ
T j Tw Hölling M, Herwig H (2004) CFD-today: Anmerkungen zum kri-
s   tischen Umgang mit kommerziellen Software-Programmpake-
Ts þ þ ten. Forschung im Ingenieurwesen 68:150–154
 log 1 þ logðyln D Þ þ CD ; ð19Þ Kock F (2003) Bestimmung der lokalen Entropieproduktion in
Tw
2 turbulenten Strömungen und deren Nutzung zur Bewertung
1 4 konvektiver Transportprozesse. Dissertation, TU Hamburg-
þ þ
SPRO;C 0 mp ¼ 0:15 Pryln Harburg
þ
2ymp C
Kock F, Herwig H (2004a) Local entropy production in turbulent
shear flows: a high-Reynolds number model with wall func-
1 tions. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 47:2205–2215
þ  Kock F, Herwig H (2004b) Entropy production for turbulent
þ
Ts =Tw þ log yln C
þ CCþ shearflows and their implementation in CFD codes. In: Pro-
3 ceedings of the international symposium on advances in comp
heat transfer, Norway April 19–24, paper CHT-04-112
1 5: Spurk JH (1989) Strömungslehre. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg
  ð20Þ
Ts =Tw þ log þ
2ymp þ CCþ New York
Zhang YM, Hang J, Lee C (1997) Heat transfer and friction
characteristics of turbulent flow in circular tubes with twisted-
with CDþ ¼ 5:0 and CCþ ¼ 13:7 Pr2=3  7:5: tape inserts and axial interrupted ribs. Enhanced Heat Transfer
4:297–308

References

Bejan A (1978) General criterion for rating heat-exchanger per-

formance. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 21:655–658