4.7 Article

Prediction of geyser boiling limit for high temperature two-phase thermosyphons

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2020.120656

关键词

Two-phase thermosyphons; Sodium; High Temperature; Geyser boiling; Nucleate pool boiling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work presents an analytical model to predict the Geyser Boiling limit for high temperature two-phase thermosyphons, introducing a new dimensionless bubble release number as an indicator for ideal operation. Experimental observations show that thermosyphons operate in ideal regime when the bubble release number is below 0.01, surpassing the Geyser Boiling phenomenon.
The purpose of this work is to present an analytical model to predict the Geyser Boiling limit for high temperature two-phase thermosyphons. By this limit, it is understood the minimum heat flux required to the thermosyphon to work in the ideal operation regime. The Geyser Boiling phenomenon is characterized by a nucleate pool boiling instability that occurs in the evaporator mainly at low heat fluxes, resulting in abrupt synchronized temperature and pressure oscillations, in both the evaporator and condenser, not recommended in most actual applications. A new dimensionless bubble release number, which represents the wall superheat necessary to generate a bubble at given diameter and temperature operation conditions, is proposed. It is observed experimentally that thermosyphons operate in ideal regime, surpassing the Geyser Boiling, when the bubble release number is less than 0.01, value taken as the Geyser Boiling limit. Therefore, the minimum heat transfer rate necessary to operate high temperature thermosyphons in de ideal regime is given by the Geyser Boiling limit. The modeling presented in this paper can be used as an engineering tool to design high performance, safe operation systems, involving high temperature two-phase thermosyphons that operate outside the Geyser Boiling regime. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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