4.7 Article

A 2.5-D modeling approach for single-phase flow and heat transfer in manifold microchannels

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER
Volume 126, Issue -, Pages 317-330

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.04.145

Keywords

Single-phase; Liquid cooling; Manifold-microchannels; Laminar flow; Developing flow; Reduced-order modeling; 2.5-D

Funding

  1. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Intrachip/Interchip Enhanced Cooling (ICECool) Fundamentals Program [HR0011-13-2-0012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A reduced-order 2.5-D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling approach for single-phase flow and heat transfer in manifold-microchannel heat exchangers was developed, and found to exhibit an order-of-magnitude reduced computational cost compared to a full 3-D simulation. Unlike previous approaches that neglect the convective terms in the momentum equations and assume fully developed flow, in the present work, the inertial terms in the momentum equations were retained, and a user defined-scalar was used to calculate flow distance so that developing flow could be assumed. The 2.5-D model was then compared to a full 3-D CFD simulation, and was shown to be accurate as long as inertia is low enough to prevent the onset of secondary flows. The governing dimensionless parameters were defined, and the effect of each dimensionless parameter was investigated via parametric studies. Finally, a multi-dimensional parametric study was performed to determine the dimensionless parameter that governs the accuracy of the 2.5-D approach. In the end, it was determined that as long as dimensionless length is above 0.1, pressure drop can be predicted to within an average error of similar to 7% for any fluid, and heat transfer can be predicted to within an average error of 6% for water and air. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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