1 / 18

System-Level Analysis of Heat Pipes in Modern CAD Environments

Explore the need for accurate predictions in heat pipe modeling, avoiding common misconceptions, system-level approaches, gas blockage, VCHP modeling, CAD methods, and future efforts.

ellism
Download Presentation

System-Level Analysis of Heat Pipes in Modern CAD Environments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FDM/FEM System-level Analysis of Heat Pipes and LHPs in Modern CAD Environments Aerospace Thermal Control Workshop 2005 Brent Cullimore, Jane Baumann brent.cullimore@crtech.com

  2. The Need for Analysis • The user’s confidence in any technology is based in part on its predictability • The ability to model predictable behavior • The ability to bound unpredictable behavior • Musthave compatibility with industry standard thermal analysis tools, including radiation/orbital analyzers • Shouldbe able to integrate with concurrent engineering methods such as CAD and structural/FEM

  3. How Not to Model a Heat Pipe:Common Misconceptions • “Full two-phase thermohydraulic modeling is required” • Overkill with respect to heat pipe modeling at the system level • Applicable thermohydraulic solvers are available for detailed modeling, but uncertainties in inputs can be quite large • “Heat pipes can be represented by solid bars with an artificially high thermal conductivity” • Disruptive to the numerical solution (especially in transient analyses) • Unlike a highly conductive bar, a heat pipe’s axial resistance is independent of transport length: not even anisotropic materials approximate this behavior • No information is gleaned regarding limits, design margin • “Heat pipes can be modeled as a large conductor” • Analyst shouldn’t assume which sections will absorb heat and which will reject it • Heat pipes can exhibit up to a two-fold difference in convection coefficients between evaporation and condensation

  4. Typical System-Level Approach • Targeted toward users (vs. developers) of heat pipes: • Given simple vendor-supplied or test-correlated data … • How will the heat pipe behave? (Predict temps accurately) • How far is it operating from design limits? • From this perspective, no need to model what happens past these limits!! • Network-style “Vapor node, conductor fan” approach: Gi = 1/Ri = Hi*P*DLi where:Hi = Hevap (Ti > Tvapor)Hi = Hcond (Ti < Tvapor)

  5. Next Level: QLeff • Checking Power-Length Product Limits • Sum energies along pipe, looking for peak capacity: QLeff = maxi | [ Si( Qi/2 + Sj=0,i-1Qj ) DLi ] | • Can be compared with vendor-supplied QLeff as a function of temperature, tilt • What matters is verifying margin, not modeling deprime • Exception: start-up of liquid metal pipes (methods available)

  6. Noncondensible Gas • Gas Front Modeling (VCHP or gas-blocked CCHP) • Amount of gas (in gmol, kmol, or lbmol) must be known or guessed (can be a variable for automated correlation) • Gas front modeled in 1D: “flat front” • Iteratively find the location of the gas front • Sum gas masses from reservoir end (or cold end). For a perfect gas:* mgas = Si {(P-Psat,i)*DLi*Apipe/(Rgas*Ti)} • Block condensation in proportion to the gas content for each section • Provides sizing verification for VCHP, degradation for CCHP ____________* Real gases may be used with full FLUINT FPROP blocks

  7. Gas Blockage in CCHPs Parametric Study ofHeat Pipe Degradationfrom Zero NCG (left)to 8.5e-9 kg-mole (right)

  8. VCHP Modeling • Requires reservoir volume and gas charge (sized by heat pipe vender) • Model axial conduction along pipe to capture heat leak through adiabatic section of pipe • Accurately capture reservoir parasitics through system model • Easy to integrate 1D or 2D Peltier device (TEC), proportional heater, etc. for reservoir (or remote payload) temperature control VCHP rejecting heat through a remote radiator

  9. 2D Wall Models • Relatively straightforward to extend methods to 2D walls • Example: top half can condense while bottom half evaporates • However: • QLeff remains a 1D concept • Gas blockage remains flat front (1D, across cross-section) • This can complicate vapor chamber fin modeling Condenser Section

  10. The Old Meets the New • Proven Heat Pipe Routines • VCHPDA SINDA subroutine • 1D Modeling of VCHP gas front • Vapor node as boundary node for stability • SINDA/FLUINT Heat Pipe routines (HEATPIPE, HEATPIPE2) • Modeling of CCHP with or w/out NCG present • Modeling of VCHP gas front • 1D or 2D wall models available • QLeff reported • Vapor node as boundary node optionally • Implicit within-SINDA solution used for improved stability • New CAD-based methods • CAD based model generation • New 1D piping methods within 2D/3D CAD models

  11. New CAD Methods • Modeling heat pipes in FloCAD • Import CAD geometry • Quickly convert CAD lines and polylines to “pipes” • Generates HEATPIPE and HEATPIPE2 calls automatically with heat pipes without heat pipes Heat Pipes Embedded in a Honeycomb Panel

  12. Heat Pipe Data Input • User-defined heat pipe options and inputs

  13. CAD-based Centerlines and Arbitrary Cross Sections

  14. Attach to 2D/3D Objects (contact), radiate off walls …

  15. What’s Missing?Future Heat Pipe Modeling Efforts • Currently heat pipe walls are limited to 1D or 2D finite difference modeling (FDM) • Other FloCAD objects (like LHP condenser lines) allow walls to be unstructured FEM meshes, collections of other surfaces, etc. • But a detailed model can conflict with common assumptions such as heat transfer at the “vapor core diameter” • Vapor Chamber Fins • 2D “power-length” capacity checks • 2D gas front modeling (not currently a user concern)

  16. A little about Loop Heat Pipes (LHPs) • CCHPs and VCHPs are “SINDA only” (thermal networks) • Can access complex fluid properties, but FLUINT is not required • LHPs require more complex solutions (two-phase thermohydraulics: fluid networks) • Condenser can be quicklymodeled using FloCAD’spipe component. • Walls can be FEM meshes,Thermal Desktop surfaces,or plain tubes (piping scheduleavailable) • Easy to connect or disconnect pipes • Manifolds, etc.

  17. LHP Condenser Modeling • Must accurately predict subcooling production and minor liquid line heat leaks • Import CAD geometry for condenser layout • Requires sufficient resolution to capture thermal gradients • Capture variable heat transfer coefficient in the condenser line based on flow regime • Model flow splits in parallel leg condenser • Model flow regulators

  18. Conclusions • Heat pipes and LHPs are can be easily modeled at the system-level • Heat pipes: using modern incarnations of “trusted” methods • LHPs: using off-the-shelf, validated thermohydraulic solutions • New CAD methods permit models to be developed in a fraction of the time compared with traditional techniques

More Related