THE LOOP HEAT PIPE

FOR AMS-02

Stefano Zinna
Marco Marengo

LSRM, Faculty of Engineering, University of

Bergamo, viale Marconi 5, 24044 Dalmine,
Italy
Inside ANTASME

OBTAINED RESULTS

8.1 The LHP for AMS is built and

run for orbital conditions

8.2 The ground LHP for AMS is

built and stationary results
are compared with LHP model
in microgravity

8.3 The construction of the

thermal chamber in China is
delayed (cancelled)

8.4 A simplified model of the LHP

is carried out in order to be
implemented in
multidisciplinary codes

9.3 The LHP model has been run

by including the FEM results
about valve
 INDEX

1. Simulation of the LHP prototype in the

thermal chamber (ground test)
(deliverable 8.2)
2. Definition of data input and output
structures for future implementation
in general multidisciplinary codes
(deliverable 8.4)
3. Implementation of the FEM data in the
SINDA/FLUINT network scheme
(deliverable 9.3)
 Deliverable - 8.2
Simulation of the LHP prototype in the thermal chamber
(ground test)
 Ground LHP results

 The ground propylene LHP TCC TS

has been implemeted: The
model has different correlation
for pressure drop and
condensation in the two-
phase part (condenser)
 The reservoir temperature
(TCC) and subcooling
temperature (TS) are
compared with microgravity
model
CONDENSER
254
252
250
 Stationary mode is run with 248

power from 30 W to 90 W 246

244
TCC (mG)
 The 1G results have 242
TS (mG)
temperature lower than mG
T [K]

240
238
while the power is increasing 236
TCC (G)
TS (G)
234
 The temperature difference is 232

about 2° for 90W 230

228
226
224
30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Q [W]
 m-G/1G PRESSURE DROP

m-G

 Bubbly/Slug flow: McAdam’s formulation for homogeneous flow

 The annular regime: Lockhart-Martinelli correlation

(Zhao L. Rezkallah K.S., 1995. Pressure drop in gas-liquid flow at microgravity

conditions. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 21, 837-849)

1G

 The predicted pressure drops is based on the Muller-Steinhagen and Heck

correlation (John R. Thome, Wolverine Engineering Data Book III, 2006)

The factors A and B are the frictional pressure gradients for all the flow
liquid and all the flow vapour
 1G Model SLIP FLOW
 The Tabular connector
device allows users to
specify flow rate versus head
(or pressure drop)
relationships in tabular (array)
formats

 The gravitational forces are

independent of the velocity
while the friction and the
acceleration forces are
function of the square of the
flow rate

 These coefficient are

inserted in the equation for
the fluid path while the
vapour path is set in order to
satisfy the slip flow model
chosen
m-G/1G pressure drop differences

 The Clausius–Clapeyron correlation is used to calculate the temperature

difference in the two-phase part of the condenser

MICROGRAVITY NORMAL GRAVITY

DT DP (Pa) DT DP (Pa)

30 0.008 69.3 0.012 97.2

60 0.076 701.7 0.095 874

Q [W]
90 0.16 1815.7 0.16 1791

 THE TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE IS WEAKLY RELATED TO THE

PRESSURE DROP
 m-G/1G CONDENSATION
m-G

 The condensation heat transfer coefficient for two-phase flow is based on Shah’s
correlation (Po-Ya Abel Chuang, An improved steady-state model of loop heat
pipes on experimental and theoretical analyses. 2003, Phd Thesis)

1G

 The correlation is based on Dobson and Chato method. (Soliman transition

criterion) (John R. Thome, Wolverine Engineering Data Book III, 2006)

 The annular correlation:

 The stratified-wavy correlation:

 GRAVITY FLOW PATTERN

 The Soliman transition criterion

for predicting the transition from
annular flow to stratified-wavy
flow was used

350
225 K
240 K
 The G is always lower than 500: 300
ANNULAR
255 K
270 K
G (30W)=9.3; G (60W)=18.7; G 250 285 K
(90W)=28 300 K
200 315 K
Froude
 The transition from stratified to 150

annular is with quality between 100

0.6 and 0.8 depending on the
temperature 50

transition
0
STRATIFIED
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

X
m-G/1G condensation differences
TRANSITION
225 K
8,0 285 K
7,5
315 K

7,0  Stratified-wavy Dobson &

6,5

6,0
Q Chato heat transfer compared
5,5 90 W with Shah heat transfer
5,0

4,5
 High quality
4,0
 The heat transfer coefficient
3,5

3,0
difference is higher with higher
2,5 power incoming the
2,0 30 W
1,5
evaporator
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

X
TRANSITION
9 225 K
285 K
8 315 K

6  Annular Dobson & Chato heat

5 transfer compared with Shah
4 heat transfer
3  Low quality
2
 The heat transfer for D&C is
1 always higher
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

X
 CONCLUSIONS

 The gravity model temperatures are lower than

the microgravity model and the difference is
increasing while the power incoming in the
evaporator is increasing
 The pressure drop has a negligible
influence on the temperature drop in the
two-phase condenser
 Wider two-phase lenght for high power

 Higher difference in the heat transfer for

high power
 Deliverable - 8.4
Definition of data input and uotput structures for future
implementation in general multidisciplinary codes
 ANALYTICAL MODEL
(Evaporator balance)

•To test the SINDA/FLUINT results

and to understand which are the
most important parameters that
influence the LHP in order to set the
input/output structures

•The heat absorbed from the cryoo-

cooler crosses from the evaporator UW
wall to the solid wick and it is shared
Gback
between Fluid wick and Reservoir:

•The pressure in the end of the liquid

line is close to the saturation pressure
& the liquid flow rate depends on the
power and the evaporation enthalpy
at saturation temperature (Tsat):
 ANALYTICAL MODEL
(Radiator balance)

•The temperature changes depends

only on the axial conductances with
the evaporator wall and can be
considered negligible while the
pressure drop has a small influence
on the enthalpy:

•The power rejected from the

radiator (Qout) is due to the
radiation towards the external
environmental
 ALGEBRAIC SYSTEM

•The algebraic system has now 5

parameters: UWB, QCRYO, Qflux, Grad, 300

Tsink:
280

260

T [K]
240

220

200

•The results are shown in the graphic

180
for the steady state operating
Tsink
temperature: (a) Qflux=70 [W], 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Uwb=25/3 (b) Qflux=0 [W], Uwb Q [W]
=25/3 (c ) Qflux=70 [W], Uwb=25/6.
For all the cases the radiative
conductance Grad is 5.010-9 [W/T^4]
and the Tsink is 170K.
 CONDENSER TEMPERATURE

 The initial part of the pipe is

near the end. The high
temperature of the incoming
two-phase fluid causes a
important heat transfer to the
outgoing fluid, the TS increases
and consequently the TCC is
higher.

 Another heat flux is exchanged

between two parts of the same
condenser in the middle of the
radiator and leads to the first
maximum in figure.
 Input/output structures

 Where Lo is a system operator, t is

time, x(t) is the state of the system,
u(t) is its input, w(t) is some external
or internal disturbance, and l is a
parameter that defines the system.
Each one of these quantities belongs
to a suitable set or vector space and
there are a large number of
possibilities

 y: the steady state operating

temperature and subcooling
temperature; u: the power coming in INPUT OUTPUT SYSTEM BOUNDARY
the evaporator; w: the boundary
conditions (the external fluxes in the
radiator, the radiative conductance
and the sink temperature for the
radiator); l : the ratio between the
conductance inside the wick and the
conductance from the wick to the
reservoir, and the radiator area.
 CONCLUSIONS

 An analytical model is carried out in order to

achieve a simplified model: good
approximation of the SINDA results for high
power
 The input/output structures are defined: the
solver Lo could be by the analytical model
(Lo-> an algebraic operator ) or the sinda
model
SINDA

ANALYTICAL MODEL
 Deliverable - 9.3
Implementation of the FEM data in the SINDA/FLUINT
network scheme
 LHP-VALVE

 Temperature requirements:
Q CRYO-
COOLER TCRYO
Min. turn-on and operational 263K
temperature of the Cryo-
cooler
Max. operational temperature of 313K
the Cryo-cooler EVAPORATOR TCC
VALVE
OPEN
CLOSE L
MODE
MODE

 WORST CONDITIONS
H
(Coldest environment, nominal RADIATOR
working (2LHP), minimum P
power (61W)) : TRAD
226K< TCRYO <230K

EXTERNAL AMBIENT
Implementation of the FEM data

 The information about the valve come VALVE

from FEM ANALYSIS (Speetjens M. &
Rindt, C. 2006 Numerical analysis of
the bypass valve in aloop heat pipe,
INTERREG IIIC MATEO-ANTASME
Deliverable 9.2. )
 The solver is only sinda (NO analytical SINDA
model)

 The pressure drop :

 1 set point
264

 OPEN MODE: 262

TCRYO<263 260
TCRYO
TRCC

 CLOSE MODE: 258

T [K]
TCRYO>263 256

254

252

250

8000 8500 9000 9500 10000

 The temperature in 280

time [s]

the cryo react TCRYO

TCC
quickly to the open 260
R

TRAD

mode
T [K]

 The temperature in 240

the cryo reachs

220

262.7
200
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

time [s]
 2 set point
266

 OPEN MODE: 264

TCRYO<263 TCRYO
262 TR
 CLOSE MODE: CC

TCRYO>265 260

T [K]
258

 Valve between the

open and the close 256

mode: 254

263<TCRYO<265 252

8000 8500 9000 9500 10000

280 time [s]

 The temperature TCRYO

requirements are 260
TCC

satisfied TRAD

 The temperature is
T [K]

240

2° higher than 1 set

point 220

200
5000 10000 15000

time [s]
 CONCLUSIONS

 The FEM data are inserted in the sinda

model and two cases are run depending
on 1/2 set points
 There is a little inertia between the
compensation chamber and the cryo
 a higher set point should be chosen
 2 set point should be definied