4.7 Article

The numerical simulation with staggered alternation locations and multi-flow directions on the thermal performance of double-layer microchannel heat sinks

Journal

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
Volume 163, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114332

Keywords

Double-layer microchannel heat sinks; Staggered flow alternation structure; Thermal resistance; Local position; Multi-flow direction

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51676163]
  2. National 111 Project [B18041]
  3. Fund Project for the Innovative Doctoral Dissertation of Northwestern Polytechnical University [CX201945]
  4. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, ROC [107-2221-E-009-143]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The novel staggered flow alternation structure (SFAS) proposed in prior study has proved to be an efficient way in improving the overall thermal performance with acceptable pressure drop penalty in Double-layer Microchannel Heat Sinks (DMHSs). Based on the prior design, a further numerical investigation concerning the optimum location of SFAS in DMHSs is presented. The corresponding temperature fields, Nusselt number, flow fields, pressure drop and thermal characteristics are presented through verified computational mode. In addition, the effect of flow arrangements such as concurrent, upper-inlet/lower-inlet countercurrent arrangement on the thermal performance are studied in more details. The best thermal location of SFAS in the DMHSs is found to be based on the alterable locations and multi-flow directions. Yet, changing the location of staggered alternation structure does not lead to an appreciable rise of pressure drop penalty in DMHSs. However, the improvement in thermal performance for upper-inlet countercurrent arrangement is significant. Placing the SFAS in the middle of the DMHSs ensures the best overall thermal performance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available