Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:52:10.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Heat Transfer Performance of Porous Copper Fabricated by Lost Carbonate Sintering Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Liping Zhang
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Liverpool, Department of Engineering, Liverpool, United Kingdom
David Mullen
Affiliation:
[email protected], Thermacore Europe Ltd, Ashington, United Kingdom
Kevin Lynn
Affiliation:
[email protected], Thermacore Europe Ltd, Ashington, United Kingdom
Yuyuan Zhao
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Liverpool, Department of Engineering, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Get access

Abstract

The heat transfer coefficients of porous copper fabricated by the lost carbonate sintering (LCS) process with porosity range from 57% to 82% and pore size from 150 to 1500 μm have been experimentally determined in this study. The sample was attached to the heat plate and assembled into a forced convection system using water as the coolant. The effectiveness of the heat removal from the heat plate through the porous copper-water system was tested under different water flow rates from 0.3 to 2.0 L/min and an input heat flux of 1.3 MW/m2. Porosity has a large effect on the heat transfer performance and the optimum porosity was found to be around 62%. Pore size has a much less effect on the heat transfer performance compared to porosity. High water flow rates enhanced the heat transfer performance for all the samples.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fuller, A.J., Kim, T., Hodson, H.P. and Lu, T. J., Proc. IMechE, 219(2005), Part C: 183191 10.1243/095440605X8414Google Scholar
2 Hetsroni, G., Gurevich, M, Rozenblit, R, Intl Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 27(2006), 259266 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2005.08.005Google Scholar
3 Boomsma, K., Poulikakos, D., and Zwick, F., Mechanics of Materials 35(2003) 11611176 10.1016/j.mechmat.2003.02.001Google Scholar
4 Jiang, P.X., Li, M., Lu, T.J., Yu, L. and Ren, Z.P., Intl. Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 47(2004), 20852096 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2003.12.004Google Scholar
5 Tzeng, S.C. and Ma, W.P., Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer, 31(2004), 827836 10.1016/S0735-1933(04)00069-7Google Scholar
6 Hwang, G.J. and Chao, C.H., Journal of Heat Transfer, Transactions ASME, 116(1994), 456464 10.1115/1.2911418Google Scholar
7 Zhang, H.Y., Pinjala, D., Joshi, K., Wong, T.N., Toh, K.C. and Iyer, M.K., IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies, 28 (2005), 272279 10.1109/TCAPT.2005.848528Google Scholar
8 Zhao, C.Y., Kim, T., Lu, T.J. and Hodson, H.P., Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, 18(2004), 309317 10.2514/1.11780Google Scholar
9 Zhao, Y.Y., Fung, T., Zhang, L.P. and Zhang, F.L., Scripta Materialia, 52(2005), 295298 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2004.10.012Google Scholar
10 Tao, X.F., Zhang, L.P. and Zhao, Y.Y., Materials Science Forum, 539-543 (2007), 18631867 Google Scholar
11 Thewsey, D.J. and Zhao, Y.Y., Physica Status Solidi A, 205(2008), 11261131 10.1002/pssa.200723121Google Scholar