4.7 Article

CFD modeling of liquid-metal heat pipe and hydrogen inactivation simulation

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2022.123490

关键词

Liquid-metal heat pipe; CFD; Phase change; Hydrogen inactivation; Hydrogen window

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51906101]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFB1502903]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study develops a comprehensive CFD model to visually reveal the effects of hydrogen permeation on heat transfer in liquid metal heat pipes (LMHPs). Experimental validation confirms the reliability of the model and demonstrates the negative impacts of hydrogen-buffer formation and hydrogen migration on heat transfer.
The use of hydrogen window is a potential way for liquid metal heat pipes (LMHPs) to avoid hydrogen inactivation when operated in a hydrogen-containing atmosphere. To reveal the effects of hydrogen permeation on heat transfer in LMHPs in a visual way, we develop a comprehensive CFD model in this work for the first time, and experimental tests are also carried out for model validation. The experimental results show that the top end of an LMHP reduces to below 400 degrees C after hydrogen inactivation, when the heating temperature of the evaporator is maintained at 950 degrees C. It takes about 150 min for the LMHP to recover performance by flushing its hydrogen window with nitrogen controlled at 50 mL/min. The CFD model is demonstrated reliable by comparing the predicted heat output and temperature distribution with the experimental results in steady state. The CFD model is capable of reproducing the liquid up-throwing phenomenon, and revealing the impact of hydrogen-buffer formation on heat transfer. In addition, the hydrogen migration along with the returning condensate leads to the formation of a gas blanket covering the inner surface in the condenser, which has a negative effect on the heat transfer as well. (C) 2022 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