4.6 Article

Experimental investigation and influence of filling ratio on heat transfer performance of a pulsating heat pipe

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.tsep.2023.101649

关键词

Pulsating heat pipe; Filling ratio; Heat input; Ethalyne glycol; CFD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the two-phase system of a pulsating heat pipe, taking into account useful heat transfer. The experimental results showed that the thermal resistance decreases gradually with an increase in heat transfer rate, with the lowest resistance observed at a fill ratio of 55%. The heat transfer performance of ethylene glycol was good, exhibiting improvement compared to CFD results.
Experimental investigation of the two-phase system of a pulsating heat pipe taken into account useful heat transfer In the field of thermal management, many new prospective concepts and techniques have been devel-oped, one of which is the pulsating heat pipe, a classic heat transfer technique. The PHP is constructed from 8 turns of copper tubes with inner diameters of 2 mm, wall widths of 1 mm, and a total length of 5324 mm. The CLPHP uses ethylene glycol as the functioning liquid at different fill proportions of 45 %, 55 %, 65 %, 75 %, and 85 % of its amount. The evaporator section is heated electrically by a plate heater ranging from 120 W to 600 W, and the condenser section is cooled by a continuous flow of cooling water. The results thermal resistance de-creases gradually with an increase in heat transfer rate. It is apparent that a lower rate of thermal resistance is by a fill ratio of 55 %. The evaporator temperature is 181.57 degrees C and the condenser temperature is 41.06 degrees C for ethylene glycol measured for calculating heat transfer performance at 600 W, thermal resistance is 0.136 degrees C/W, heat transfer coefficient is 526.45 W/m2-degrees C, and enhanced heat transfer is thus good, exhibiting good improvement at a full percentage of 55 % and when compared with CFD results.

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

4.6
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