4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Heat transfer performance of a compact loop heat pipe with alumina and silver nanofluid

期刊

JOURNAL OF THERMAL ANALYSIS AND CALORIMETRY
卷 136, 期 1, 页码 211-222

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10973-018-7739-0

关键词

Loop heat pipe; Electronic cooling; Heat transfer; Nanofluid; Silver; Aluminium oxide nanoparticles

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology (DST), Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), New Delhi, India [SB/FTP/ETA-362/2012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The heat transfer performance and entropy analysis are done in a compact loop heat pipe (CLHP) with Al2O3/water and Ag/water nanofluid. A compact loop heat pipe having a flat square evaporator with dimensions of 34 mm (L) x 34 mm (W) x 19 mm (H) has been fabricated and tested for the heat load ranging from 30 to 500 W. The experimental tests are conducted by keeping the CLHP in the vertical orientation with distilled water, silver (Ag)/water and aluminium oxide (Al2O3)/water nanofluid having low volume concentrations of (0.09% and 0.12%). The effect of wall and vapour temperature, evaporator and condenser heat transfer coefficient, thermal resistance on the applied heat loads is experimentally investigated and compared. The experimental results showed that the evaporator thermal resistance is reduced by 34.70% and 20.21%, respectively, for 0.12 vol% of Ag, Al2O3 nanoparticles when compared with that of the distilled water. For the same volume concentrations of Ag, Al2O3 nanoparticles, an enhancement of 34.52%, 23.7%, 39.27% and 30.8%, respectively, observed for the convective heat transfer coefficients at the evaporator and condenser. The entropy is also reduced by 19.08% and 11.58% when Ag and Al2O3 nanofluids are used as the operating fluid. From the experimental tests, it is found that the addition of small amount of Ag nanoparticles in the working fluid enhanced the operating range by 15% when compared with that of Al2O3/water nanofluid without the occurrence of any dry-out conditions.

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