4.7 Article

Finned heat sinks with phase change materials and metal foams: Pareto optimization to address cost and operation time

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 197, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117436

关键词

Heat sinks; Metal foams; Phase change materials; Multi-objective optimization; Heat management; Pareto front

资金

  1. Italian Government MIUR [PRIN-2017F7KZWS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study optimized the design of a heat sink using a mathematical model and genetic algorithm to achieve a balance between maximizing operation time and minimizing cost. The optimal solution features an operation time of 4000 s with a cost of about 225 euro per device.
Finned heat sinks equipped with phase change materials to store and release large amounts of thermal energy and metal foams to increase overall thermal conductivity are a promising solution for heat transfer surfaces thermal management. These devices need to be properly designed in order to achieve an optimal trade-off between fundamental objectives like cost minimization and operation time maximization. Nowadays there are no studies available that figure out how to combine design variables to reach these goals. In the present study, a mathematical model based on volume-averaged porous media equations is employed to predict surface operation time. After comparisons with literature data, multi-objective Pareto optimization of such devices is performed with a genetic algorithm because of the large explored domain of solutions referred to heat sink geometry and foam morphology. The results show that the derived Pareto front covers operation time and device cost between about 2000-6000 s and 200-275 euro per device, respectively, while the optimum according to the utopia criterion features an operation time of 4000 s with a cost of about 225 euro per device. Data presented here can be a very useful tool to design such devices for heat transfer management in an optimized form.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据