Article

Effects of bending on heat transfer performance of axial micro-grooved heat pipe

Journal of Central South University of Technology (Impact Factor: 0.36). 04/2011; 18(2):580-586. DOI: 10.1007/s11771-011-0734-2

ABSTRACT Heat pipe is always bent in the typical application of electronic heat dissipation at high heat flux, which greatly affects
its heat transfer performance. The capillary limit of heat transport in the bent micro-grooved heat pipes was analyzed in
the vapor pressure drop, the liquid pressure drop and the interaction of the vapor with wick fluid. The bent heat pipes were
fabricated and tested from the bending angle, the bending position and the bending radius. The results show that temperature
difference and thermal resistance increase while the heat transfer capacity of the heat pipe decreases, with the increase
of the bending angles and the bending position closer to the vapor section. However, the effects of bending radius can be
ignored. The result agrees well with the predicted equations.

Key wordselectronics cooling system–axial micro-grooved heat pipe–bending–heat transfer performance

Full-text

Available from: Lelun Jiang, Oct 16, 2014
5 Followers
 · 
384 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper, we report on the novel design, fabrication and performance tests for a polymer-based flexible flat heat pipe (FHP) with a bending angle in the range of 15–90°. Each heat pipe is 4 mm thick, 20 mm wide and 80 mm long, with two layers of No. 250 copper mesh as the wicking material. A copper/silicone rubber hybrid structure is designed and fabricated to achieve the flexibility of the heat pipe. Thermal characteristics are measured and studied for de-ionized water under different working conditions. Experimental results reveal that a bending angle of 15° on the vertical plane has a better thermal performance than those of heat pipes with/without bending. In addition, a higher power of 12.67 W can be transferred/delivered.
    Energy Conversion and Management 06/2013; 70:10–19. DOI:10.1016/j.enconman.2013.02.011 · 3.59 Impact Factor