Measures permeability in LPBF lattice wicks, suggesting tailored designs improve efficiency.
Additive manufacturing enables engineered heat-pipe wicks with tailored pore geometry yet reported permeabilities for laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) lattices vary widely because permeability is often extracted from pressure-drop data that span multiple flow regimes. This study measures the permeability of LPBF AlSi10Mg lattice wicks using water flow through sealed test sections and establishes a repeatable procedure to isolate the Darcy (viscous) regime prior to fitting Darcy’s law. Simple cubic (SC), body-centered cubic (BCC), and fluorite unit cells were fabricated with systematically varied unit-cell size to produce porosities of approximately 20–70%. Differential pressure was recorded over a broad range of Darcy velocities. Reduced pressure-drop and friction-factor–Reynolds number representations were used to identify the onset of inertial effects. Darcy-regime bounds were refined by selecting the near-horizontal reduced pressure-drop region and adjusting end points to maximize linear-fit quality while maintaining regime consistency. Permeability values obtained from Darcy-only fits are compared with those extracted from broad-range (Darcy–Forchheimer) fits, demonstrating that including inertial data can bias permeability by up to ∼ 53% depending on lattice topology and porosity. Across the tested range, permeability increases strongly with porosity and depends on topology, with simple cubic lattices generally exhibiting the highest permeability for a given porosity. Finally, geometry-specific permeability–porosity correlations are proposed for preliminary wick selection and capillary-limit modeling, with applicability limits tied to the tested porosity window and LPBF length scales. The results provide guidance for consistent permeability extraction and reporting for AM lattice wicks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hasan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: