Effects of multiple sintering parameters on the thermal performance of bi-porous nickel wicks in Loop Heat Pipes

Date

2016-08-01

Advisors

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Elsevier

Type

Article

Peer reviewed

Yes

Abstract

The thermal performances of a bi-porous nickel wicks in Loop Heat Pipe (LHP) including porosity, permeability, capillary pumping head and effective thermal conductivity (ETC) have been examined theoretically and experimentally, based on five key sintering parameters including the content of pore forming agent, compacting pressure, sintering holding time, sintering temperature and the particle size of pore forming agent. Firstly, a total number of 16 orthogonal tests are carried out with five key sintering factors and four levels of each factor. The optimal level of five sintering factors is obtained from the point of acquiring the most desirable overall performance of bi-porous nickel wicks, which can be used as the reference sintering process for bi-porous nickel wicks. Then, the experimental values of ETC were compared with eleven theoretical models. The results showed that the Alexander model and the Maxwell model overestimated and underestimated the experimental results of bi-porous nickel wicks, respectively. In the porosity range of 0.5–0.7, an average of the Chernysheva and Maydanik model and the Chaudhary and Bhandari model was found to be the best fit to the experimental data, providing an accurate method to predict ETC values of bi-porous nickel wicks of LHP.

Description

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.

Keywords

Loop Heat Pipe, Bi-porous wick, Effective thermal conductivity, Sintering parameters, Porosity, Permeability

Citation

Qu, Y., Zhou, K., Zhang, K., Tian, Y. (2016) Effects of multiple sintering parameters on the thermal performance of bi-porous nickel wicks in Loop Heat Pipes. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 99, pp.638–646.

Rights

Research Institute