4.4 Article

Thermal Characteristics of a Three-Dimensional Coil Type Pulsating Heat Pipe at Different Heating Modes

出版社

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.4048760

关键词

pulsating heat pipe; temperature fluctuation; effective thermal conductivity; binary fluid; condenser coolant temperature; heat pipes; heat transfer enhancement; two-phase flow and heat transfer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed that the heat transfer performance of a three-dimensional pulsating heat pipe (PHP) is effective, with significantly higher effective thermal conductivity for horizontal and vertical orientations. Additionally, the use of binary fluids can increase the maximum heat input of the heat pipe in different heating modes.
The heat transfer performance of a pulsating heat pipe (PHP) configured as a three-dimensional (3D) structure is reported in the present study. The PHP structure resembles an elongated coil and termed coil type PHP. Five different heating modes were created by positioning the evaporator at different locations and placing the PHP device in vertical and horizontal orientations. Studies were conducted primarily with de-ionized water as the working fluid. Limited number of experiments were also performed using binary fluids. The filling ratio was varied from 40% to 80%, while the heat input was varied from 20 W to 240 W. The vertical and horizontal orientations show almost 30 and 10 times reduction in the thermal resistance, respectively, compared with bare PHP tubes without the working fluid. This results in an effective thermal conductivity of more than 3000 W/(m K) and 12,000 W/(m K) for horizontal and vertical orientations, respectively. The use of the binary fluid (10 wt% and 20 wt% of ethanol aqueous solution) results in an increase in the maximum heat input at different heating modes. The temperature of the coolant supplied to the condenser section of the PHP was also varied, and the thermal resistance of the system was observed to reduce with an increase in the coolant temperature.

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

4.4
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