4.6 Article

Influence of Orientation and Radiative Heat Transfer on Aluminum Foams in Buoyancy-Induced Convection

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages 6792-6805

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma8105340

Keywords

experimental; heat sink; natural convection; metal foam; finned heat sink; radiation; heat transfer

Funding

  1. Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT) [141733]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two differently-produced open-cell aluminum foams were compared to a commercially available finned heat sink. Further, an aluminum plate and block were tested as a reference. All heat sinks have the same base plate dimensions of four by six inches. The first foam was made by investment casting of a polyurethane preform and has a porosity of 0.946 and a pore density of 10 pores per linear inch. The second foam is manufactured by casting over a solvable core and has a porosity of 0.85 and a pore density of 2.5 pores per linear inch. The effects of orientation and radiative heat transfer are experimentally investigated. The heat sinks are tested in a vertical and horizontal orientation. The effect of radiative heat transfer is investigated by comparing a painted/anodized heat sink with an untreated one. The heat flux through the heat sink for a certain temperature difference between the environment and the heat sink's base plate is used as the performance indicator. For temperature differences larger than 30 C, the finned heat sink outperforms the in-house-made aluminum foam heat sink on average by 17%. Furthermore, the in-house-made aluminum foam dissipates on average 12% less heat than the other aluminum foam for a temperature difference larger than 40 C. By painting/anodizing the heat sinks, the heat transfer rate increased on average by 10% to 50%. Finally, the thermal performance of the horizontal in-house-made aluminum foam heat sink is up to 18% larger than the one of the vertical aluminum foam heat sink.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available