0
Research Papers: Evaporation, Boiling, and Condensation

A Comparative Study of Flow Boiling in a Microchannel With Piranha Pin Fins

[+] Author and Article Information
X. Yu

Mechanical, Aerospace, and Nuclear
Engineering Department,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
110 8th Street,
Troy, NY 12180
e-mail: yux2@rpi.edu

C. Woodcock

Mechanical, Aerospace,
and Nuclear Engineering Department,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
110 8th Street,
Troy, NY 12180
e-mail: woodcc@rpi.edu

Y. Wang

Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
University of Central Florida,
Orlando, FL 32816
e-mail: Yingying.Wang@ucf.edu

J. Plawsky

Chemical Engineering Department,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
110 8th Street,
Troy, NY 12180
e-mail: plawsky@rpi.edu

Y. Peles

Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
University of Central Florida,
Orlando, FL 32816
e-mail: Yoav.Peles@ucf.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received July 20, 2015; final manuscript received May 27, 2016; published online June 28, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Ali Khounsary.

J. Heat Transfer 138(11), 111502 (Jun 28, 2016) (12 pages) Paper No: HT-15-1486; doi: 10.1115/1.4033743 History: Received July 20, 2015; Revised May 27, 2016

In this paper, we report on the recent development of an advanced microscale heat sink, termed as piranha pin fin (PPF). A 200 μm deep microchannel embedded with PPFs was fabricated and tested. Fluid flow and heat transfer performance were evaluated with HFE7000 as the working fluid. The surface temperature, pressure drop, heat transfer coefficient, and critical heat flux (CHF) conditions were experimentally obtained and discussed. A 676 W/cm2 CHF was achieved based on the heater area and at an inlet mass flux of 2460 kg/m2 s. Microchannels with different PPF configurations were investigated and studied for different flow conditions. It was found that a microchannel with PPFs can dissipate high heat fluxes with reasonable pressure drops. Flow conditions and PPF configuration played important roles for both fluid flow and heat transfer performances. These studies extended knowledge and provided useful reference for further PPF design in microchannel for flow boiling.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of a microchannel with PPFs: (a) PPFs conceptual design and (b) silicon-based microchannel with PPFs (half of the channel)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic images for a single microchannel device: (a) a full device, (b) silicon piece with etched microchannel and pressure ports, and (c) flow patch in microchannel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Process flow for microfabrication

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Designed dimensions for single device and PPFs: (a) a single device dimension, (b) PPFs' dimension, (c) single PPF of device #1, and (d) single PPF of device #2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic diagram of the experimental system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Heater calibration for device #1 (PPF's mouth opening of 70 μm) and device #2 (PPF's mouth opening of 90 μm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Heat loss calibration (heat flux is based on the heater area only)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Flow boiling visualization for single PPF: (a) position of the single PPF (this PPF is located in the middle of the last array), (b) onset of boiling for device #2 at a single PPF (q″ = 160 W/cm2, Gin = 948 kg/m2 s, and Pref = 240 kPa), and (c) developing flow boiling for device #2 at a single PPF (q″ = 180 W/cm2, Gin = 948 kg/m2 s, and Pref = 240 kPa)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Base heat flux versus average surface temperature Tw under open flow condition for device #1(PPF's mouth opening of 70 μm) and device #2 (PPF's mouth opening of 90 μm): (a) device #1, Pref = 240 kPa; (b) device #1, Pref = 377 kPa; (c) device #2, Pref = 240 kPa; and (d) device #2, Pref = 377 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Heat transfer coefficient versus heat flux for open flow: (a) device #1 (PPF's mouth opening of 70 μm) and (b) device #2 (PPF's mouth opening of 90 μm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Heat flux versus surface temperature Tw for extraction-only flow: (a) device #1, Pref = 240 kPa; (b) device #1, Pref = 377 kPa;(c) device #2, Pref = 240 kPa; and (d) device #2, Pref = 377 kPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Pressure drop versus heat flux for extraction-only flow: (a) device #1 (PPF's mouth opening = 0.07 mm) and (b) device #2 (PPF's mouth opening = 0.09 mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Heat transfer coefficient versus heat flux for extraction-only flow: (a) device #1 and (b) device #2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Exit quality for extraction-only flow: (a) device #1 and (b) device #2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Ratio of CHF with open flow and CHF with extraction-only flow

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