4.7 Article

A novel triangular pulsating heat pipe with enhanced heat transfer performance for building energy efficiency

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.csite.2023.103286

关键词

Rnewable energy; Pulsating heat pipe (PHP); Capillary force; Filling ratio; VOF; Heat transfer performance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel triangular pulsating heat pipe (TPHP) is proposed to solve the starting-up issue in a non-vertical direction. The study investigates the impact of TPHP model structure, heating temperature, and liquid filling ratio on heat transfer performance. The results reveal that a rationalized model structure reduces heat flow resistance by up to 38.04%, and the optimum liquid filling ratio is around 50%. This study is critical for expanding the application of single-loop PHP in buildings.
Utilizing renewable energy in buildings is promising for alleviating the energy crisis and envi-ronmental pollution problems. Pulsating heat pipes (PHPs) are considered as a good alternative to achieve it due to their simple structure and efficient heat transfer performance. However, recently developed PHPs having a non-vertical orientation require a certain number of turns to initiate operation, which greatly limits its application. To solve this starting-up issue in a single-loop PHP, this study proposes a novel triangular pulsating heat pipe (TPHP). A validated volume of fluid (VOF) model is developed to investigate three important factors on the heat transfer performance including the model structure of the TPHP, the heating temperature and the liquid filling ratio. The results show that the TPHP can achieve heating start-up in non-vertical direction and the heat flow resistance can be reduced by up to 38.04% through a rationalized model structure. The filling ratio influences the heat flow resistance by affecting the flow pattern within the TPHP while the optimum liquid filling ratio is about 50%. This study is critical to broaden the appli-cation of single-loop PHP in buildings.

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