4.7 Article

Confinement and vapour production rate influences in closed two-phase reflux thermosyphons Part A: Flow regimes

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER
Volume 119, Issue -, Pages 907-921

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.10.049

Keywords

Thermosyphon; Flow maps; Flow regimes; Two phase flow; Confinement; Reflux thermosyphon; Flow pattern map

Funding

  1. HEA under the Graduate Research Education Programme
  2. Nokia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the boiling regimes in a small diameter (D = 8 mm) transparent thermosyphon. The influence of confinement on the boiling regimes was studied using a range of fluids. The confinement of the vapour phase leads to boiling regimes that differ from those traditionally described for thermosyphon evaporator boiling physics, widely considered as a combination of pool boiling and film evaporation. The boiling behaviour of small dimension thermosyphons was investigated by designing and constructing a fully transparent thermosyphon, enabling simultaneous thermal and visual analysis. Three working fluids, water, ethanol and HFE-7000, were used to characterise the thermosyphon behaviour with varied characteristic bubble length scales. The observed flow regimes could be characterised in terms of the degree of confinement and rate of vapour production. A flow regime map was developed based on these observations to predict thermosyphon flow in terms of both confinement and the rate of vapour production. It was determined that for low confinement and high rates of vapour production, the boiling regimes resemble those of pool boiling. In contrast, at high levels of confinement and high heat flux, an unsteady regime exists where relatively large bubbles and vapour generation rates result in a pulsatile geyser-type flow regime. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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