4.7 Article

Local heat transfer of saturated flow boiling in vertical narrow microchannel

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2019.105996

关键词

Microchannel; Flow boiling; Local heat transfer; Hydrophilic surface

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province in China [LY19E060004]
  2. Scientific Research Fund of Zhejiang Provincial Education Department [Y201840664]
  3. MIT Greater China fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this experimental study, saturated flow boiling in a one-side-heating vertical narrow rectangular microchannel is conducted with deionized water as the working fluid, the mass flux is in the range of 120 kg/m(2)s - 360 kg/m(2)s, the wall heat flux varies from 6 W/cm(2) to 24 W/cm(2) and the inlet vapor quality is 0.03 or 0.1. The bottom surface of the microchannel is constructed of two different material, one is the untreated hydrophilic silicon wafer with a contact angle of 65 degrees +/- 3 degrees, the other is the super-hydrophilic silicon wafer deposited with a thin film of 100-nm-thickness silicon dioxide through PECVD with a contact angle less than 5 degrees. The flow patterns in almost all experimental conditions are the annular flow and the heat transfer mechanism is dominated by convective evaporation, the heat flux transfers through the conduction and convection in the thin liquid film and evaporation at the interface between the vapor and liquid. The thinner the liquid film, the greater the heat transfer coefficient. The local dryout phenomenon is observed on the untreated hydrophilic surface while the super-hydrophilic surface can keep the liquid film uniform and restrict the occurrence of local dryout phenomenon. Through the evaluation of the correlations of heat transfer coefficient, this study proposes the modified Li and Wu [18] correlation as a formula for calculating the heat transfer coefficient of saturated flow boiling in a vertical narrow one-sided heating microchannel.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据