0
Research Papers: Radiative Heat Transfer

Dynamic Control of Radiative Surface Properties With Origami-Inspired Design

[+] Author and Article Information
Rydge B. Mulford

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Brigham Young University,
Provo, UT 84602

Matthew R. Jones

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Brigham Young University,
435 CTB,
Provo, UT 84602
e-mail: mrjones@byu.edu

Brian D. Iverson

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Brigham Young University,
435 CTB,
Provo, UT 84602
e-mail: bdiverson@byu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received February 17, 2015; final manuscript received September 18, 2015; published online November 3, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Laurent Pilon.

J. Heat Transfer 138(3), 032701 (Nov 03, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: HT-15-1128; doi: 10.1115/1.4031749 History: Received February 17, 2015; Revised September 18, 2015

Thermal management systems for space equipment commonly use static solutions that do not adapt to environmental changes. Dynamic control of radiative surface properties is one way to respond to environmental changes and to increase the capabilities of spacecraft thermal management systems. This paper documents an investigation of the extent to which origami-inspired surfaces may be used to control the apparent absorptivity of a reflective material. Models relating the apparent absorptivity of a radiation shield to time-dependent surface temperatures are presented. Results show that the apparent absorptivity increases with increasing fold density and indicate that origami-inspired designs may be used to control the apparent radiative properties of surfaces in thermal management systems.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Surface origami structures with V-groove-like cavities created from the folds. The inset illustrates the V-groove nomenclature and cavity angle, ϕ.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of the control volume and energy terms used to model the relationship between the measured time-dependent, surface temperatures, and the apparent absorptivity of the surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of the test configuration and temperature measurement for cyclic heating of folded or flat thin-foils using a blackbody cavity. The heat flux gauge used to determine the radiation flux from the blackbody was positioned in the plane where the sample is located in this schematic.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Cyclic heating and cooling of a flat and a folded Al thin-foil with ϕ ≅ 14 deg (L/D ≅ 4); note the quasi-steady operation at >1000 s. (b) An exponential curve fit to data from the last eight cycles during quasi-steady operation with blackbody cavity at 1000 °C.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Computed overall heat transfer coefficient value (U) for heating and cooling portions during cyclic heating for a flat surface and a folded surface with ϕ ≅ 14 deg (L/D ≅ 4)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Horizontal and vertical flux distributions measured over a 25 mm radius centered about the blackbody cavity axis. The average value over this region (950 W m−2) is also indicated.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Results for the three inverse solution methods for a flat, Al surface with measured surface absorptivity of α = 0.028. Error bounds for the steady-state method are ±0.0172.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Heating and cooling curves averaged over eight cycles for surfaces that range in cavity angle from a flat surface to a surface with ϕ ≅ 11 deg (L/D ≅ 5), indicating the increase in surface temperature for the same heating condition resulting from an increased apparent absorptivity with reducing cavity angle. Temperature data were collected at a rate of 3 Hz.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Results for the three inverse solution methods for a folded, Al surface with intrinsic absorptivity of α = 0.028 and ϕ ≅ 14 deg (L/D ≅ 4); note the increase in apparent absorptivity as compared with the flat-surface results in Fig. 7. Error bounds for the steady-state method are ±0.0521.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Apparent absorptivity as a function of cavity angle for Sparrow’s analytical V-groove model (Eq. (18), [20]) and the inverse steady-state model (Eq. (8)) of this work for a folded Al thin-foil with intrinsic absorptivity of α = 0.028. Sparrow’s model for intrinsic absorptivities of α = 0.3 and 0.6 is also presented to show the more gradual increase toward unity of these higher intrinsic absorptivity surfaces.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In