4.7 Article

Comparative thermal performance evaluation between ultrathin flat plate pulsating heat pipe and graphite sheet for mobile electronic devices at various operating conditions

Journal

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
Volume 149, Issue -, Pages 1427-1434

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.12.146

Keywords

Flat plate pulsating heat pipe; Graphite sheet; Thermal performance

Funding

  1. Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  2. Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea [20173010013220]
  3. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [20173010013220] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study is to evaluate the thermal performance improvement of an ultrathin, flat plate pulsating heat pipe (PHP) against a graphite sheet for use in mobile electronic devices. Initially, the thermal performances of five PHP models with various channel designs are quantified, and an optimum PHP is selected to achieve the best performance. In the optimum PHP, the thermal performance is analyzed as a function of the heat input and condenser temperature. Finally, the finished product of the flat plate PHP is fabricated using a diffusion bonding technique. The thermal performance of the finished flat plate PHP is then compared with that of the graphite sheet based on conducted tests at the inclination angles of 90 degrees, 0 degrees, and 90 degrees. The thermal resistances of the finished flat plate PHP at the inclination angles of 90 degrees and 0 degrees are 63% and 56%, respectively, lower than those of the graphite sheet, whereas the resistance at the inclination angle of -90 degrees is almost the same as that of the graphite sheet.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available