0
Research Papers: Electronic Cooling

Genetic Algorithm Based Optimization of PCM Based Heat Sinks and Effect of Heat Sink Parameters on Operational Time

[+] Author and Article Information
Atul Nagose, Ankit Somani, Aviral Shrot

Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India

Arunn Narasimhan1

Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, Indiaarunn@iitm.ac.in

1

Corresponding author.

J. Heat Transfer 130(1), 011401 (Jan 28, 2008) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2780182 History: Received January 12, 2007; Revised May 07, 2007; Published January 28, 2008

Using an approach that couples genetic algorithm (GA) with conventional numerical simulations, optimization of the geometric configuration of a phase-change material based heat sink (PBHS) is performed in this paper. The optimization is done to maximize the sink operational time (SOT), which is the time for the top surface temperature of the PBHS to reach the critical electronics temperature (CET). An optimal solution for this complex multiparameter problem is sought using GA, with the standard numerical simulation seeking the SOT forming a crucial step in the algorithm. For constant heat dissipation from the electronics (constant heat flux) and for three typical PBHS depths (A), predictive empirical relations are deduced from the GA based simulation results. These correlations relate the SOT to the amount of phase change material to be used in the PBHS (φ), the PBHS depth (A), and the heat-spreader thickness (s), a hitherto unconsidered variable in such designs, to the best of the authors’ knowledge. The results show that for all of the typical PBHS depths considered, the optimal heat-spreader thickness is 2.5% of the PBHS depth. The developed correlations predict the simulated results within 4.6% for SOT and 0.32% for ϕ and empowers one to design a PBHS configuration with maximum SOT for a given space restriction or the most compact PBHS design for a given SOT.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Schematic representation of PBHS; (b) domain chosen for analysis (E-PBHS)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

E-PBHS with boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Comparison of melt front solver with benchmark solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Isotherms for three arbitrary E-PBHS designs (see Table 3 for specific values) at the end of SOT

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

SOT and melt time versus Φ for w=2mm and w=4mm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Flowchart of the GA solution procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Binary representation of the “individual” E-PBHS considered in the GA solution procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Fitness function, Eq. 7, evolution with generations for A=(a)0.02m; (b) 0.06m

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Values of s for optimal designs determined by the GA procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

SOT values for different A for optimal designs determined by the GA procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Φ values for different A for optimal designs determined by the GA procedure

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