Performance Assessment of

Single and Multiple Jet

Pablo A. de Oliveira
POLO—Research Laboratories for Emerging
Technologies in Cooling and Thermophysics,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Federal University of Santa Catarina,
Florianopolis 88040-900, Santa Catarina, Brazil
1 multiple jets is presented and the influence of the following parameters is quantified: (i)
Jader R. Barbosa, Jr.
POLO—Research Laboratories for Emerging
Technologies in Cooling and Thermophysics,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Federal University of Santa Catarina,
Florianopolis 88040-900, Santa Catarina, Brazil
e-mail: jrb@polo.ufsc.br
Impingement Configurations in a
Refrigeration-Based Compact
Heat Sink for Electronics Cooling
The performance of a novel impinging two-phase jet heat sink operating with single and
thermal load applied on the heat sink and (ii) geometrical arrangement of the orifices
(jets). The heat sink is part of a vapor compression cooling system equipped with an R-
134a small-scale oil-free linear motor compressor. The evaporator and the expansion
device are integrated into a single cooling unit. The expansion device can be a single ori-
fice or an array of orifices responsible for the generation of two-phase jet(s) impinging
on a surface where a concentrated heat load is applied. The analysis is based on the ther-
modynamic performance and steady-state heat transfer parameters associated with the
impinging jet(s) for single and multiple orifice tests. The two-phase jet heat sink was
capable of dissipating cooling loads of up to 160 W and 200 W from a 6.36 cm2 surface
for single and multiple orifice configurations, respectively. For these cases, the tempera-
ture of the impingement surface was kept below 40  C and the average heat transfer coef-
ficient reached values between 14,000 and 16,000 W/(m2 K). [DOI: 10.1115/1.4036817]

Keywords: jet impingement, heat sink, boiling, phase change, refrigeration

1 Introduction them. Additional design benefits associated with this approach are
the reduction of weight and volume of the cooling system [8].
Throughout the years, ground breaking advances in design,
The viability of a direct liquid cooling configuration is highly
microfabrication, and performance of electronic systems (e.g., com-
dependent on its ability to produce very high convective heat
puter technology and power modules) have been accompanied by
transfer coefficients in order to compensate for the inferior
higher rates of heat dissipation (and temperature rise), which are a
thermophysical properties of dielectric coolants. Two-phase cool-
challenging obstacle for technological innovation and development
ing schemes, such as sprays, impinging jets, and boiling in micro-
[1]. According to the 2015 International Electronics Manufacturing
channels, have been attracting the attention of the research
Initiative (iNEMI) roadmaps, contemporary microprocessors for
community for a number of years due to their enhanced heat trans-
desktop machines are designed to operate above 150 W, server and
fer characteristics [1,7,9–15].
computer cluster chips are likely to exceed power dissipation of
Mechanical vapor compression refrigeration can lower the
500 W per chip, and the power dissipation of chips in automotive
component (e.g., junction) temperature to a value inferior to that
applications, whose dimensions are typically smaller than desktop
of its surroundings. The integration of vapor compression systems
computer and servers, is reaching 300 W with heat fluxes of
with two-phase enhanced heat transfer schemes (jets, sprays,
200–300 W/cm2 [2]. Besides, the demand for reducing the size of
microchannels) has proven to be an innovative and effective way
insulated gate bipolar transistor power modules for hybrid and elec-
of removing highly concentrated heat loads [16–20].
tric vehicles was expected to increase the volumetric power rating
Jet impingement cooling has been extensively studied over the
in 10–50 times compared to the larger modules commonly used in
past two decades. The effects of several parameters such as nozzle
railway applications [3].
shape and diameter, impingement height, impact velocity, nozzle
Several cooling technologies have been studied with a focus on
pitch distance, jet array, subcooling degree, surface structure and
advanced military avionics and high-performance computers and
aging, cross flow and drainage conditions on the fluid dynamics,
servers [4–6] since novel efficient alternatives for high heat flux
and heat transfer of single- and two-phase impinging jets have
removal are required in these applications. Among the existing
been widely reported [21–28]. The use of multiple impinging jets
thermal management solutions, direct liquid cooling [7] enables
has been proposed in many studies. However, this cooling princi-
the contact between a dielectric liquid coolant and the electronic
ple has not yet been integrated into mechanical vapor compression
components taking advantage of the complete elimination of the
refrigeration loops [29–40]. Impinging jets have also been com-
thermal resistances of the different layers of materials separating
bined with microchannels aiming to create high-performance
hybrid cooling schemes that benefit from the attributes of both
enhanced heat transfer techniques [41–46]. A few works have pre-
1
Corresponding author. sented mechanical vapor compression systems that use thermal
Contributed by the Electronic and Photonic Packaging Division of ASME for
publication in the JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC PACKAGING. Manuscript received January
devices based on spray cooling, but were not purposely designed
25, 2017; final manuscript received April 24, 2017; published online June 28, 2017. to be compact or miniaturized [47–53]. Oil lubricated compres-
Assoc. Editor: Dong Liu. sors [48,51–53], ancillary expansion valves [47–49,51], and tube

Journal of Electronic Packaging Copyright V

C 2017 by ASME SEPTEMBER 2017, Vol. 139 / 031005-1

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/936321/ on 06/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 evaporators [52,53] were often needed to operate the active cool-
ing system, as revised in Refs. [54,55].
A typical single-stage vapor compression-based processor cool-
ing system is composed of a compressor, a condenser, an expan-
sion device, and a heat sink or cold plate evaporator. As a heat
transfer strategy, two-phase impinging jets offer the advantage of
combining micro-orifices as the expansion device and the evapo-
rator/heat sink into a single cooling unit, which goes toward mini-
aturization [54]. Besides, the full potential size reduction of the
system can be achieved by the usage of a small-scale compressor.
This paper advances the performance evaluation of the compact
active cooling system introduced in Refs. [54–56] by experi-
mentally evaluating its operation with multiple jets and focusing
on the influence of distinct parameters, namely, the applied ther-
mal load and the geometrical configuration of multiple orifices.
The analysis presented here is based on thermodynamic per-
formance and steady-state heat transfer parameters associated
with the impinging jet(s) for single and multiple jet cooling
tests.
2 Experimental Work
2.1 Experimental Apparatus. A schematic diagram of the
experimental apparatus is shown in Fig. 1. The compressors are
small-scale (0.27 cm3 maximum volumetric displacement, 340 Hz
operating frequency, 1.3 kg weight per unit) R-134a oil-free linear
motor units equipped with frequency inverters to control their
volumetric displacement (piston stroke). Although the two units
were installed in parallel to generate higher flow rates, only one
compressor was operated in this study. The compressor electrical
power consumption was measured with a digital power meter
(Yokogawa WT230). Inside the compressor calorimeter, direct
current (DC)-powered centrifugal fans are utilized to homogenize
the air temperature. Their electrical power consumption was
measured using digital multimeters (Minipa—ET2517A). A
brazed plate counter-flow condenser and two cascade thermal
baths controlled the temperature of the hot reservoir (ambient).
The R-134a mass flow rate was measured with a Siemens
MASS 2100 DI 1.5 Coriolis mass flow meter (uncertainty of
60.05 kg/h). The volumetric flow rate of the condenser secondary
fluid—a 90%/10% vol. mixture of distilled water and ethylene
glycol (WEG)—was measured with a Seametrics SPX-038 paddle
wheel flow meter (uncertainty of 60.07 L/min). Absolute pressure
transducers (uncertainties of 60.05 bar and 60.03 bar for the
high- and low-pressure sides, respectively) and resistance temper-
ature detectors (RTDs) (uncertainty of 60.20  C) were used to
measure the local pressures and temperatures (and monitor in real
time the thermodynamic states of the refrigerant) at the points
shown in Fig. 1. The reading, logging, and storage of data are per-
formed with a National Instruments data acquisition system
(SCXI-1000) connected to a computer equipped with the Lab-
VIEW software. The data acquisition frequency was set at 10 Hz
for all variables.
An electrical trace heater wrapped around the compressor suc-
tion line was installed to guarantee a safe operation of the com-
pressor, as the refrigerant may exit the test section (two-phase jet
heat sink) with a significant liquid fraction. In a real application
(as opposed to a lab test device such as the present apparatus), the
thermal energy required to superheat the refrigerant vapor enter-
ing the compressor may come from an internal heat exchanger
(using the condenser as a heat source), not necessarily adding to
the electrical supply to the system. A fixed refrigerant superheat-
ing degree was maintained at the compressor inlet. The tempera-
tures of point 1 (compressor inlet in Fig. 1) and of the calorimeter
were accurately controlled by dedicated hardware and software,
i.e., a built-in LabVIEW proportional–integral–derivative control-
ler code, which operates with a specially designed voltage-to-
current converter electronic board. The room temperature was
controlled by a split-type air conditioner equipped with a
variable-speed compressor. The complete specification of setup
components, measurement instrumentation, and variable control
strategies can be found in Ref. [54]. As seen in Fig. 1, the experi-
mental facility has a secondary evaporation circuit (assembled in
parallel with the primary circuit), which is composed of a meter-
ing (expansion) valve and an evaporator. The reason for incorpo-
rating a second evaporation circuit in the experimental loop is
allowed for thermal performance tests using other high heat flux
removal devices, such as microchannel evaporators. By using the

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus: (1) compressor inlet (suction),
(2) compressor outlet (discharge), (3) condenser inlet (refrigerant side), (4) condenser
outlet (refrigerant side), (5) jet cooler inlet, (6) jet cooler outlet, (7) condenser inlet (WEG
side), (8) condenser outlet (WEG side), and (9) secondary evaporator inlet (not used in
this study)

031005-2 / Vol. 139, SEPTEMBER 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/936321/ on 06/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


Fig. 2 Two-phase jet cooler: assembly and main components
[55,56]
same cooling system at the same operating conditions, a fairer and
more robust basis for comparing different technologies can be
established. However, this part of the loop was not used in this
study.
2.2 Two-Phase Jet Heat Sink. The core idea of the novel
heat sink is to combine the expansion device and the evaporator
into a single cooling module using two-phase impinging jet(s) to
remove the heat load from a small surface. The two-phase jet
cooler is presented in Fig. 2 together with some ancillary compo-
nents. It is composed of a metallic cap, a jet impingement cham-
ber, an internal orifice plenum, a polymeric unit that serves for
Fig. 3 Orifice plenum: (a) assembled components and (b) outer and inner orifice plates
Journal of Electronic Packaging
Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/936321/ on 06/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
Fig. 4 Dimensions of the threaded screw (nozzle): (a) size and
(b) orifice diameters (in lm)
thermal insulation and fluid drainage, a reservoir to collect the
spent two-phase mixture, a film heater, and a copper block
that emulates the electronic component. The external dimensions
of the jet cooler unit are 80 mm (width)  80 mm (depth)
 112.5 mm (height).
High-pressure subcooled liquid from the condenser flows
through the metallic cap directly into the orifice plenum. The ple-
num, shown in detail in Fig. 3, consists of an AISI 316 stainless
steel outer orifice plate, a polyacetal resin polyoxymethylene
(POM) inner orifice plate, and the expansion device itself, which
is an array of POM 10 mm long threaded screws with the actual
orifices drilled along their centerlines, as shown in Fig. 4. The ori-
fice plates are held together by the screws. Up to 13 orifices in a
staggered array can be accommodated in the plenum, covering a
20 mm side square area. The low thermal conductivity of POM
reduces the thermal losses from the refrigerant to the surroundings
(inner orifice plate and screws) before the expansion.
The use of hollow threaded screws as expansion devices is one
of the main features of the novel jet heat sink. Considering the
range of orifice diameters that can be drilled and the many alterna-
tives in terms of number of screws and their positions, several jet
SEPTEMBER 2017, Vol. 139 / 031005-3
 Fig. 5 Assembly of the skin heater (with the Teflon base plate) and copper block in the insula-
tion and drainage unit

array configurations can be tested with the same orifice plenum.
As the subcooled liquid passes through the nozzle, it expands gen-
erating a downward-oriented jet inside a polycarbonate jet cham-
ber. The jet length, i.e., the orifice-to-heater distance, is defined as
the vertical distance from the outlet of the orifice to the base of
the chamber, which is at the same level as the impingement
surface.
The impingement surface is the top surface of a heated cylindri-
cal copper block mounted inside a polycarbonate bottom piece
(the so-called insulation and drainage unit). This unit was spe-
cially designed to thermally insulate the lateral surface and the
bottom of the copper block and facilitate drainage of the two-
phase mixture from the jet chamber into the reservoir just below
it. The assembly procedure of the copper block in the unit is
shown in Fig. 5. The small gap between the copper block and the
insulation and drainage unit is sealed by two O-rings (the grooves
are shown in Fig. 6). This prevented the flow of refrigerant into
the skin heater cavity. The heat load is provided by a 200 W thin
film heater pressed firmly against the bottom of the copper block
by a Teflon base plate. This arrangement guarantees a good ther-
mal contact between the heater and the block. The thermal load
was finely controlled by a DC digital power supply (Agilent
N5770A). During the experimental runs, the thermal load was
augmented in steps by increasing the voltage or the current pro-
vided by the power supply.
The copper block has six RTD wells, as shown in Fig. 6. Five
RTDs are used to measure the temperature and allow for an estimate
of the surface temperature to be made using Fourier’s law. The
remaining RTD is connected to a commercial proportional–integra-
l–derivative controller that functions as a safety system cutting the
heating power supply in the event of a temperature runaway associ-
ated with the critical heat flux. In the present experiments, the cutoff
temperature was set at 68  C. The area of the target surface is 6.36
cm2 (D ¼ 28.54 mm) and the distance from the plane of the RTDs to
the impingement surface is 10.03 mm [54,55].
The copper block was designed so that its diameter is circum-
scribed the skin heater surface area (20 mm  20 mm), as shown
in Fig. 5(a). Numerical simulations of the heat transfer in the

Fig. 6 (a) Copper block and (b) cross-sectional view of the copper block (RTD’s plane, dimen-
sions in millimeters)

031005-4 / Vol. 139, SEPTEMBER 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/936321/ on 06/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 Fig. 7 Internal orifice plenum showing the (a) single and (b)–(d) multiple orifice configurations:
(a) single jet, (b) multiple jet array #1, (c) multiple jet array #2, and (d) multiple jet array #3

copper block/insulation and drainage unit (the skin heater was
modeled and implemented as a source term) revealed that the dif-
ference between the power dissipated at the skin heater and the
heat transfer rate effectively dissipated at the jet impingement sur-
face (top surface of the copper block) was lower than 5%. Further
details regarding this analysis can be found in Ref. [54].
2.3 Experimental Conditions and Procedure. The experi-
mental tests were run at the maximum compressor displacement.
subcooling degree at the outlet of the condenser, vapor mass qual-
ity at the outlet of the two-phase jet cooler, heat transfer rates, and
compressor power. Based on the output variables, the jet impinge-
ment heat transfer coefficient can be calculated.
All output data were recorded during a 15 min time interval,
Ds, after guaranteeing that the following steady-state criteria were
simultaneously satisfied:
sðXÞjDs  jUðXÞj (1)
The diameter of the orifices was 300 lm and the orifice-to-heater  
distance (jet length) was 28.84 mm. The secondary fluid tempera- @X 
max Ds  jsð XÞ (2)
ture was set at 25  C in all tests. The refrigerant charge in the sys-
tem was adjusted so that the tests for each multiple jet array had
the same refrigerant mass flow rate at the lowest thermal load
(75 W). The mass flow rate of the WEG mixture was kept fixed
at 180 kg/h. This value was sufficient to produce a high overall
thermal conductance in the condenser, thus guaranteeing large
condenser heat transfer rates (up to 301 W). The room temperature
and the calorimeter temperature were set at 25  C. The compressor
inlet superheat, defined as DTsh ¼ T1  Tevap , was kept fixed at
10  C.
The influence of the following variables was investigated: (i)
applied thermal load and (ii) orifice array configuration (for the
tests with multiple jets). Figure 7 presents the single and the mul-
tiple jet arrays explored, which are different combinations of a
five-orifice configuration. For the single-jet test, the orifice screw
was positioned at the center of the orifice plate assembly and
dummy screws occupied the remaining positions.
All experimental runs were carried out in the heating-up mode,
i.e., increasing the heat load until the critical heat flux was
reached, which explains the different number of tests for the
single- and multiple-jet configurations. The critical heat flux was
characterized experimentally by a sudden increase of the heater
surface temperature and was confirmed by visual observations to
coincide with a partial or total dryout of the liquid film on the
heater surface.
The output variables of the experimental apparatus are the pres-
sures, temperatures, refrigerant mass flow rate, refrigerant
Journal of Electronic Packaging
Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/936321/ on 06/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
@s Ds
where sðXÞ is the standard deviation of a generic output variable
X and U expresses its overall experimental uncertainty. j is an
integer corresponding to each one of the three divisions of the
Gaussian probability distribution, i.e., j ¼ 1, 2 or 3. The left-hand
side of Eq. (2) was estimated numerically by a second-order cen-
tered finite difference scheme.
Before recording the data, Eqs. (1) and (2) were verified during
three consecutive time intervals, Ds, to ascertain that the steady-
state was actually reached. The output data were recorded only
when the left-hand side of Eq. (2) was lower than 2sðXÞ. In the
following, three distinct cases are presented as numerical exam-
ples of the computation procedure. Each case considers a different
output variable, i.e., mass flow rate, temperature, and pressure, for
the single-jet, 75-W test.
Case 1: Mass flow rate: Considering that sðm_ r ÞjDs ¼ 0:006 kg/h,
Uðm_ r Þ ¼ 60:05 kg/h, ðmaxð@ m_ r =@sÞÞjDs Ds  maxðDm_ r =2Þ ¼
0:003 kg/h.
Case 2: Temperature: Considering that sðT2 ÞjDs ¼ 0:16  C,
UðT2 Þ ¼ 60:16  C, ðmaxð@T2 =@sÞÞjDs DsmaxðDT2 =2Þ¼0:15  C.
Case 3: Pressure: Considering that sðP2 ÞjDs ¼ 0:016 bar, UðP2 Þ
¼ 60:05 bar, ðmaxð@P2 =@sÞÞjDs Ds  maxðDP2 =2Þ ¼ 0:013 bar.
2.4 Dependent Variables. The dependent variables were cal-
culated based on the experimental measurements, as described in
SEPTEMBER 2017, Vol. 139 / 031005-5
 Refs. [54–56]. Energy balances between the inlet and outlet of the Table 1 Expanded uncertainties (maximum values) of the cal-
condenser and superheating line (see Fig. 1) can be written as culated parameters associated with the present experiments

Q_ cond ¼ m_ r ðh3  h4 Þ (3) Calculated parameter Expanded uncertainty

Q_ c (W) 2.01
Q_ sh ¼ m_ r ðh1  h6 Þ (4) W_ comp (W) 4.53
COP 0.49
where m_ r is the refrigerant mass flow rate and the refrigerant x6 0.013
enthalpy at the compressor inlet, h1 , condenser inlet, h3 , and con- hs (W/m2 K)
 433.0
denser outlet, h4 , were computed via REFPROP 8.0 [57] using the Ts ( C) 0.11
local experimental values of pressure and temperature. Tcond ( C) 0.09
Tevap ( C) 0.26
The refrigerant enthalpy at the outlet of the two-phase jet DTsh ( C) 0.31
cooler, h6 , was calculated from an energy balance on the cooler, DTsc ( C) 0.17
neglecting the kinetic and potential energy contributions. Thus DP (bar) 0.05

Q_ c
h6 ¼ h5 þ (5)
m_ r

where Q_ c is the cooling capacity and the refrigerant
specific enthalpy at the inlet of the jet cooler, h5 , was also
determined from local measurements of pressure and temperature.
At steady-state, the cooling capacity is equal to the thermal load
provided by the skin heater, considering a perfectly insulated test
section.
The vapor mass quality at the exit of the jet cooler, x6 , was
determined from h6 and the measured outlet pressure, P6 . The sat-
uration pressures were calculated directly from the experimental
data, i.e., Pevap ¼ P6 and Pcond ¼ P4 , both taken at the outlets of
the jet cooler and condenser, respectively.
The indicated power, i.e., the useful work performed on the
refrigerant by the piston per unit time, can be determined by the
following equation:
W_ ind ¼ m_ r ðh2  h1 Þ (6)
where h2 is the enthalpy at the compressor outlet computed using
the local experimental values of pressure and temperature.
The coefficient of performance (COP) has been defined consid-
ering the energy consumption strictly necessary to remove the
imposed heat load upon the jet cooler
The temperature of the surface of the copper block, Ts , was
determined through a linear extrapolation of Fourier’s law consid-
ering one-diimensional heat conduction in the axial direction

LQ_ c
Ts ¼ TRTD  (9)
ks As
where L is the distance between the copper block surface and the
plane of the RTDs and ks is the thermal conductivity of copper
evaluated at TRTD , which is the arithmetic mean of the five RTDs
used to measure the copper block temperature.
2.5 Energy Balances and Experimental Uncertainties. As
discussed in Ref. [55], energy balances were executed on the
experimental apparatus for each test to verify the consistency of
the experimental measurements. The energy balance residue, deb ,
is defined as the difference between the heat transfer rates out of
and into the refrigeration system


jQ_ cond  Q_ c þ Q_ sh þ W_ ind j
deb ¼  100% (10)
Q_ c þ Q_ sh þ W_ ind

Q_ c As shown in Fig. 1, a compressor calorimeter has been specially

COP ¼ (7)
W_
where W_ ¼ W_ comp þ W_ fan is the sum of the power consumptions
of the compressor and fan located inside the calorimeter (recom-
mended by the compressor manufacturer to cool the compressor
shell).
The jet impingement heat transfer coefficient, hs , is a
key parameter in the design of the two-phase jet cooler. It is
defined by

Q_ c
hs ¼ (8)
As ðTs  Tevap Þ
where As is the impingement surface area, Tevap is the evaporat-
 1.4%, which confirms that the energy balance was fully satisfied
ing temperature, and Q_ c is the heat transfer rate at the copper
block surface, i.e., the fraction of the input heat load that
actually reaches the impingement surface. Considering steady-
state conditions and negligible thermal losses through the layers
of elastomeric thermal insulation placed around the jet cooler
unit, it was assumed that the heat load provided by the skin
heater is totally absorbed by the refrigerant flowing inside the
jet cooler, including the drainage channels. Therefore, its value
equals the cooling capacity of the system. The procedure to
 uncertainties vary according to each experimental run, only the
determine Q_ c was outlined in detail in Ref. [55], with the rela-

tive difference between Q_ c and the thermal load being of the
order of 5% for all tests.
designed and constructed to provide an indirect measure of the
rate of heat dissipation by the compressor through its shell. A full
description of the calorimeter is given in Refs. [54,55]. The calo-
rimeter energy (heat) balance residue, dcal , is defined as the rela-
tive error of the measurement of the heat transfer rate through the
compressor shell
jQ_ shell;cal  Q_ shell;eb j
dcal ¼  100% (11)
Q_ shell;eb
where Q_ shell;eb is calculated from the energy balance on the com-
pressor, i.e., W_ comp  W_ ind , and Q_ shell;cal is computed according to
the procedure presented in Refs. [54,55].
For the tests reported in this paper, the average value of deb was
and that the experimental facility was properly insulated and the
energy transfer rates were measured accurately. The compressor
calorimeter energy balance was also satisfied (despite the some-
what larger average residue of 6.4%), indicating that the energy
transfer rates to and from the oil-free compressor were also meas-
ured accurately.
Table 1 presents the expanded uncertainties for the calculated
parameters, according to the procedure of Ref. [58]. As these
maximum values are reported [54]. Table 2 presents some results
of the energy balance calculations considering different power
loads and experimental tests.

031005-6 / Vol. 139, SEPTEMBER 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/936321/ on 06/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 Table 2 Energy balance calculations for different experimental conditions

Variable Single-jet test, 125 W Jet array test #1, 100 W Jet array test #2, 75 W Jet array test #3, 200 W

Q_ cond (W) 278.83 251.19 235.82 299.85

Q_ c (W) 125.17 99.99 74.98 199.88
Q_ sh (W) 148.20 138.19 149.36 90.16
W_ ind (W) 10.05 16.83 14.77 13.51
deb (%) 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2
W_ comp (W) 74.48 57.60 48.88 54.53
Q_ shell;eb (W) 64.43 40.77 34.11 41.02
Q_ shell;cal (W) 58.00 38.71 36.15 39.93
dcal (%) 10.0 5.1 6.0 2.7

Fig. 8 Coefficient of performance as a function of the applied
heat load (cooling capacity) for single and multiple jet impinge-
ment cooling
Fig. 9 Compressor power consumption as a function of the
applied heat load (cooling capacity) for single and multiple jet
impingement cooling
3 Results
The coefficient of performance is shown in Fig. 8. A quasi-
linear increase of COP with Q_ c is observed, which results mainly
from the increase of Q_ c since W_ comp increases only slightly with
the thermal load, as depicted in Fig. 9. The multiple jet strategy
not only allows for larger thermal loads to be removed from the
heated surface (up to 200 W), but it also does so with a higher
COP compared to the single-jet case.
The physical explanation for the lower values of compressor
power consumption in the multiple jet cases lies in the corre-
sponding smaller value of pressure lift in comparison to the single
jet case. The behavior of the pressure lift (the difference between
the suction and discharge pressures) is shown in Table 3 for all
cases. For all the multiple jet arrays, the pressure lift is approxi-
mately equal to 4 bar (considering a combined experimental
uncertainty of 60.05 bar), which is almost half the value of pres-
sure lift observed in the single-jet case. As more orifices are pres-
ent in the multiple jets, the restriction imposed on the expanding
fluid is lower than that provoked by the single orifice (300 lm
diameter). As a result, a smaller refrigerant mass is accumulated
in the components on the high-pressure side of the system,
which reduces the pressure upstream of the orifice. The lower DP
through the orifice results in a significantly higher pressure down-
stream (evaporating pressure). The behavior of the saturation tem-
peratures (evaporating and condensing) is shown in Fig. 10, which
obviously follows that of the suction and discharge pressures. As
the condensing temperature is significantly reduced for tests with
multiple jet arrays, the subcooling degree at the condenser outlet,
i.e., DTsc ¼ Tcond  T4 , drastically diminished from above 21  C,
for the single-jet tests, to values ranging from 0.2 to 3.5  C, for the
multiple-jet tests.
In Figs. 8 and 9, no noticeable differences were perceived
between the values of COP and W_ comp for the multiple-jet arrays
#2 and #3. However, a higher compressor power consumption
was observed for array #1. Although the differences between val-
ues of W_ comp for arrays #1 and #2 (from 4.1 to 7.5 W) and for
arrays #1 and #3 (from 3.7 to 7.7 W) were within the expanded
experimental uncertainty reported in Table 1 (64.53 W), the exis-
tence of a deviation is clear. As can be seen in Fig. 11, the refrig-
erant mass flow rate was very similar for arrays #1, #2, and #3, so
the higher power consumption behavior for jet array #1 can be
attributed to larger values of heat dissipation rate through the
compressor shell compared to the other multiple jet cases. The
exact reason for this higher heat transfer rate is unknown—a
slightly higher air temperature (1  C) inside the calorimeter
chamber is a possible cause—but the fact is that consistently
higher compressor gas discharge temperatures have been meas-
ured in the tests with array #1, in comparison with the other multi-
ple jet tests (see Table 4). These higher discharge temperatures
resulted in higher values of W_ ind , Q_ shell;eb , and Q_ shell;cal .
The behavior of the average heater surface temperature is
shown in Fig. 12. As can be seen, a jet configuration with more
spaced orifices (arrays #2 and #3) is advantageous for reaching

Journal of Electronic Packaging SEPTEMBER 2017, Vol. 139 / 031005-7

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/936321/ on 06/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 Table 3 Pressure lift of the refrigeration system (bar) per cooling capacity (W)

Q_ c (W) Single jet (bar) Multiple jet array #1 (bar) Multiple jet array #2 (bar) Multiple jet array #3 (bar)

75 7.63 4.16 4.00 4.04

100 7.54 4.15 3.98 4.07
125 7.75 4.08 3.97 4.05
150 7.80 4.07 3.96 4.09
175 7.86 4.05 3.95 4.07
200 — 4.08 3.94 4.08

Table 4 Calorimeter data associated with the multiple orifice

tests

Q_ c (W) W_ ind (W) Q_ shell;eb (W) Q_ shell;cal (W) Tsuc ( C) Tdis ( C)

Jet array test #1

75 16.95 39.26 37.57 18.81 42.01
100 16.83 40.77 38.71 20.10 42.32
125 15.84 41.19 39.75 21.87 42.51
150 15.41 42.46 39.94 23.05 42.79
175 15.51 43.80 43.04 23.82 43.17
200 15.35 — 42.86 25.22 43.87
Jet array test #2
75 14.77 34.12 36.15 19.64 40.75
100 14.66 35.39 34.17 20.88 41.11
125 14.56 36.54 34.60 22.16 41.67
150 14.16 38.18 35.34 23.45 42.04
175 13.88 39.38 35.82 24.52 42.45
200 13.76 40.33 37.64 25.42 42.84
Jet array test #3
75 14.67 33.93 36.78 19.84 40.99
100 14.29 35.65 36.39 21.34 41.48
125 14.13 36.79 35.22 22.34 41.76
Fig. 10 Saturation temperatures (evaporating and condensing) 150 13.85 38.43 36.43 23.61 42.31
as a function of the applied heat load (cooling capacity) for sin- 175 13.68 39.67 39.60 24.75 42.80
gle and multiple jet impingement cooling (error bars not shown 200 13.51 41.02 39.93 25.79 43.30
as the temperature expanded uncertainties are smaller than the
symbol size, as seen in Table 1)

Fig. 12 Surface temperature as a function of the applied heat

Fig. 11 Refrigerant mass flow rate as a function of the applied load (cooling capacity) for single and multiple jet impingement
heat load (cooling capacity) for single and multiple jet impinge- cooling (error bars not shown as the temperature expanded
ment cooling uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size, as seen in
Table 1)

lower surface temperatures, particularly at high cooling capacities. 150 W, it is possible to see that the three multiple jet arrays give
Since the multiple jet arrays #2 and #3 differ by a 45 deg rotation very similar results. However, a gradual temperature increase is
of the orifice configuration, the similar temperature behavior of clearly perceived for array #1 at higher cooling loads (175 and
these two cases was somewhat expected. For cooling loads up to 200 W). At the more extreme conditions, partial or total dryout of

031005-8 / Vol. 139, SEPTEMBER 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/936321/ on 06/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 Table 5 Typical values of parameters related to the heat trans-
fer coefficient and surface temperature typical test conditions

Single-jet Jet array Jet array Jet array

Variable test test #1 test #2 test #3

Applied thermal load: Q_ c ¼ 100 W

P5 (bar) 12.11 6.96 6.91 7.08
P6 (bar) 5.43 4.16 4.27 4.33
Tevap ( C) 18.3 10.1 10.9 11.3
Ts ( C) 30.0 22.6 24.0 23.9
hs (W/(m2 K))
 12,758 11,948 11,377 11,904
Applied thermal load: Q_ c ¼ 125 W
P5 (bar) 12.46 7.04 6.98 7.12
P6 (bar) 5.56 4.41 4.45 4.48
Tevap ( C) 19.1 11.9 12.1 12.4

Ts ( C) 32.0 26.4 26.3 26.3
hs (W/(m2 K))
 14,543 12,906 13,185 13,412
Applied thermal load: Q_ c ¼ 150 W
P5 (bar) 12.75 7.10 7.04 7.23
P6 (bar) 5.79 4.58 4.65 4.67

Tevap ( C) 20.4 13.0 13.5 13.6
Ts ( C) 34.7 29.5 28.6 28.9
Fig. 13 Heat transfer coefficient as a function of the applied hs (W/(m2 K))
 15,667 13,579 14,831 14,667
heat load (cooling capacity) for single and multiple jet impinge-
ment cooling

Table 5 for some typical conditions. Therefore, one cannot draw

the liquid film on the surface was observed to coincide with the
increase in the heater surface temperature. Such a temperature
excursion is immediately perceived by the safety system, which
cuts the heating power supply. Therefore, for each curve in
Fig. 12, the highest temperature corresponds to the temperature
just before the total dryout. In other words, the heat load could not
be raised further without a significant increase of the heater tem-
perature above the controller cutoff temperature.
A single (concentrated) jet is more prone to the occurrence of
liquid splattering and partial dryout at high heat fluxes because of
the liquid maldistribution [54]. This becomes evident when
comparing the maximum thermal load achieved with each orifice
configuration. In Fig. 12, the single jet had the lowest maximum
thermal load/cooling capacity, while the multiple jet configura-
tions could sustain a maximum heat load of 200 W. Nevertheless,
multiple jet array #1 exhibited a gradual increase in surface tem-
perature starting at 175 W, while the remaining multiple jet arrays
(#2 and #3) maintained the same trend until the critical heat flux
was reached. This particular behavior of jet array #1 (gradual tem-
perature increase leading to the critical heat flux) can be justified
based on the liquid flow distribution on the surface. Since the liq-
uid jet is concentrated in the center of the heater, the formation of
dry spots is somehow facilitated by the liquid flow maldistribu-
tion. In a way, the gradual temperature increase before the critical
heat flux for jet array #1 reflects the different temperatures meas-
ured by the RTDs embedded in the copper block.
For jet arrays #2 and #3, partial dryout also occurred prior to
the critical heat flux (a slight increasing temperature slope is
observed starting at 150 W), but a more effective liquid distribu-
tion delays the appearance of hot spots, so the average surface
temperature is lower than for jet array #1 at 175 and 200 W. For
thermal loads larger than 200 W, no multiple jet configurations
could sustain a heater surface temperature higher than the cutoff
value of 68  C.
The jet impingement heat transfer coefficients shown in Fig. 13
were computed from Eq. (8) using the experimentally determined
average surface temperatures and the evaporating temperatures
associated with each experimental condition. Prima facie, the
higher values of the heat transfer coefficient for the single jet tests
appear to be at odds with the higher surface temperatures seen in
Fig. 12 for this configuration. This apparent inconsistency can be
explained by the fact that the evaporating temperatures were sig-
nificantly higher for the single orifice tests in comparison with the
multiple orifice cases, as seen in Fig. 10 and shown in detail in
any meaningful conclusion about the performance of different
configurations by comparing their surface temperatures alone.
It is also clear that the higher heat transfer coefficients seen in
Fig. 13 for the single jet tests are a direct consequence of the
higher values of mass flow rate (Fig. 11), which is known to be a
dominating parameter in determining the magnitude of the heat
transfer coefficient in sprays and impinging jets [59]. In the pres-
ent experiments, the higher mass flow rates in the single jet tests
are due to the larger pressure difference across the orifice, as seen
in Fig. 10 and Table 5.
It should be mentioned that the present experimental tests are
different from typical jet impingement boiling heat transfer tests,
where the mass flow rate and the thermal load can be varied inde-
pendently. Here, like the heater surface temperature, the evaporat-
ing and the condensing pressures, the mass flow rate is also a
dependent variable.
In the present tests, the mass flow rate increases with the ther-
mal load, as described in Fig. 11. The thermal conductance of the
impinging jet flow increases with the mass flow rate and with the
heat load itself (nucleate boiling contribution). However, from
one point onward, the increase in mass flow rate (which cannot
be controlled independently) is not sufficient to compensate for
the formation of dry patches and hot spots, which deteriorate the
heat transfer coefficient leading to the critical heat flux. In this
sense, the better liquid distribution on the heated surface pro-
vided by the multiple jet arrangements resulted in a more effec-
tive performance with respect to the critical heat flux than the
single jet.
Regarding the multiple jet arrays specifically, an explanation
for the heat transfer coefficient behavior for jet array #1 in com-
parison with cases #2 and #3 can be entirely based on the tempera-
ture behavior described above in terms of the geometric
configuration of the jets and formation of dry spots on the heated
surface. For multiple jet array #1, the jets are positioned closer to
each other and the impingement is concentrated at the center of
the heated surface—a geometry that resembles the single-orifice
impingement from the point of view of the heat transfer interac-
tion. On the other hand, multiple jets are expected to distribute the
liquid more uniformly on the surface. This increases the critical
heat flux and gives rise to a less abrupt transition from a fully wet-
ted to a partially wetted surface regime (dryout). This became
apparent through the gradual reduction of the heat transfer coeffi-
cient for arrays #1, #2, and #3 and was also confirmed by visual
observations during the tests.

Journal of Electronic Packaging SEPTEMBER 2017, Vol. 139 / 031005-9

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/936321/ on 06/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 Acknowledgment
This work was made possible through the financial investment
from the EMBRAPII Program (POLO/UFSC EMBRAPII Unit—
Emerging Technologies in Cooling and Thermophysics). In addi-
tion, financial supports from Embraco and CNPq (Grant No.
573581/2008-8—National Institute of Science and Technology in
Cooling and Thermophysics) are duly acknowledged. An abridged
version of this paper was presented at the 16th International
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, West
Lafayette, IN, 2016. Parts of the paper were presented at the 15th
IEEE ITHERM Conference at Las Vegas, NV, 2016.

Nomenclature
As ¼ impingement surface area, cm2
D¼ copper block diameter, cm
h¼ specific enthalpy, J kg1
hs ¼ jet impingement heat transfer coefficient, W m2 K1
ks ¼ thermal conductivity of the heated surface, W m1 K1
L¼ distance between the impingement surface and the
RTDs’ plane, mm
m_ r ¼ refrigerant mass flow rate, kg h1
Fig. 14 Vapor mass quality at the outlet of the jet cooler (x6 ) as
a function of the applied heat load (cooling capacity) for single
P¼ pressure, bar
and multiple jet impingement cooling Q_ c ¼ cooling capacity, W
Q_ cond ¼ condenser heat transfer rate, W
Q_ sh ¼ superheating heat transfer rate, W
Q_ shell ¼ heat transfer rate through the compressor shell, W

The outlet vapor mass quality, x6 , is shown in Fig. 14. As Q_ c ¼ heat transfer rate at the copper block surface, W
expected, the vapor quality increases steadily, exhibiting very s¼ standard deviation
close values for all multiple jet array configurations as well as T¼ temperature,  C
reaching very high values (up to 75%). According to Ref. [50], Tamb ¼ temperature of the hot reservoir (ambient),  C
the outlet vapor quality can be interpreted as an evaporation effi- TRTD ¼ mean temperature of the RTDs in the copper block,  C
ciency, since the liquid that leaves the jet cooler does not produce Ts ¼ impingement surface temperature,  C
a cooling effect. Therefore, high evaporation efficiencies are U¼ expanded uncertainty
observed (up to 75%), showing that the designed heat sink was W_ ¼ total input work rate, W
capable of converting a large amount of the impinging liquid jet W_ comp ¼ electrical power consumption of the compressor, W
into vapor, which is the main physical mechanism responsible for W_ fan ¼ electrical power consumption of the fan, W
the heat removal from the test surface. W_ ind ¼ indicated power, W
x¼ vapor mass quality
4 Conclusions X¼ generic output variable
d¼ heat balance residue, %
A novel two-phase jet heat sink that integrates the evapora-
DP ¼ pressure drop through the jet cooler, bar
tor and the expansion device into a single cooling module was
DTsc ¼ refrigerant subcooling degree,  C
combined with a refrigeration system which operates with a
DTsh ¼ refrigerant superheating degree,  C
compact R-134a oil-free linear-motor compressor. The applic-
Ds ¼ sampling interval, s
ability of the system in the removal of highly concentrated
heat loads has been demonstrated. Experiments have been con-
ducted for distinct jet configurations, i.e., single and multiple Subscripts
jet arrays. The influence of the applied thermal load and orifice
cal ¼ calorimeter energy (heat) balance
geometric configuration on the system performance was quanti-
cond ¼ condensing
fied using thermodynamic performance and heat transfer
eb ¼ first-law energy (heat) balance
parameters. For a fixed orifice diameter and a fixed jet length,
evap ¼ evaporating
operating the active cooling system with multiple orifice con-
figurations resulted in a better thermodynamic performance
than the single orifice configuration. Although more research is References
needed to determine the optimal multiple jet configurations, [1] Smakulski, P., and Pietrowicz, S., 2016, “A Review of the Capabilities of High
these seem to be the way forward to achieve higher critical Heat Flux Removal by Porous Materials, Microchannels and Spray Cooling
heat fluxes and, therefore, higher evaporation efficiencies (out- Techniques,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 104, pp. 636–646.
let vapor qualities). [2] Bar-Cohen, A., and Holloway, C. A., 2014, “Thermal Science and Engineering—
From Macro to Nano in 200 Years,” 15th International Heat Transfer Conference
The two-phase jet heat sink was capable of dissipating cool- (IHTC-15), Kyoto, Japan, Aug. 10–15, Paper No. IHTC15-FL01.
ing capacities of up to 160 W and 200 W from a 6.36 cm2 sur- [3] Nakayama, W., Suzuki, O., and Hara, Y., 2009, “Thermal Management of
face for single and multiple orifice configurations (#2 and #3), Electronic and Electrical Devices in Automobile Environment,” Fifth Interna-
respectively. For these cases, the temperature of the impinge- tional IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Dearborn, MI,
Sept. 7–10, pp. 601–608.
ment surface was kept below 40  C and the heat transfer coeffi- [4] Mudawar, I., 2001, “Assessment of High-Heat-Flux Thermal Management
cient reached values between 14,000 and 16,000 W/(m2 K). Schemes,” IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Technol., 24(2), pp. 122–141.
The compact vapor compression cooling solution introduced [5] Chu, R. C., Simons, R. E., Ellsworth, M. J., Schmidt, R. R., and Cozzolino, V.,
here can be further developed for specific applications in ther- 2004, “Review of Cooling Technologies for Computer Products,” IEEE Trans.
Device Mater. Reliab., 4(4), pp. 568–585.
mal management of power electronics for a variety of station- [6] Kheirabadi, A. C., and Groulx, D., 2016, “Cooling of Server Electronics:
ary and mobile systems (for instance, hybrid and electric A Design Review of Existing Technology,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 105, pp.
vehicles). 622–638.

031005-10 / Vol. 139, SEPTEMBER 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/936321/ on 06/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 [7] Bar-Cohen, A., Arik, M., and Ohadi, M., 2006, “Direct Liquid Cooling of High
Flux Micro and Nano Electronic Components,” Proc. IEEE, 94(8), pp. 1549–1570.
[8] Mudawar, I., Bharathan, D., Kelly, K., and Narumanchi, S., 2008, “Two-Phase
Spray Cooling of Hybrid Vehicle Electronics,” 11th Intersociety Conference on
Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems (ITHERM),
Orlando, FL, May 28–31, pp. 1210–1221.
[9] Agostini, B., Fabbri, M., Park, J. E., Wojtan, L., Thome, J. R., and Michel, B.,
2007, “State of the Art of Heat Flux Cooling Technologies,” Heat Transfer
Eng., 28(4), pp. 258–281.
[10] Kandlikar, S. G., and Bapat, A. V., 2007, “Evaluation of Jet Impingement,
Spray and Microchannel Chip Cooling Options for High Heat Flux Removal,”
Heat Transfer Eng., 28(11), pp. 911–923.
[11] Ebadian, M. A., and Lin, C. X., 2011, “A Review of High-Heat-Flux Heat
Removal Technologies,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 133(11), p. 110801.
[12] Marcinichen, J. B., Olivier, J. A., Lamaison, N., and Thome, J. R., 2013,
“Advances in Electronics Cooling,” Heat Transfer Eng., 34(5–6), pp. 434–446.
[13] Kadam, S. T., and Kumar, R., 2014, “Twenty First Century Cooling Solution:
Microchannel Heat Sinks,” Int. J. Therm. Sci., 85, pp. 73–92.
[14] Cheng, W.-L., Zhang, W.-W., Chen, H., and Hu, L., 2016, “Spray Cooling and
Flash Evaporation Cooling: The Current Development and Application,”
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 55, pp. 614–628.
[15] Riofrıo, M. C., Caney, N., and Gruss, J.-A., 2016, “State of the Art of Efficient
Pumped Two-Phase Flow Cooling Technologies,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 104, pp.
333–343.
[16] Barbosa, J. R., Jr., Ribeiro, G. B., and Oliveira, P. A., 2012, “A State-of-the-Art
Review of Compact Vapor Compression Refrigeration Systems and Their
Applications,” Heat Transfer Eng., 33(4–5), pp. 356–374.
[17] Trutassanawin, S., Groll, E., Garimella, S. V., and Cremaschi, L., 2006,
“Experimental Investigation of a Miniature-Scale Refrigeration System for Elec-
tronics Cooling,” IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Technol., 29(3), pp. 678–687.
[18] Marcinichen, J. B., Thome, J. R., and Michel, B., 2010, “Cooling of Microproc-
essors With Micro-Evaporation: A Novel Two-Phase Cooling Cycle,” Int. J.
Refrig., 33(7), pp. 1264–1276.
[19] Marcinichen, J. B., Olivier, J. A., de Oliveira, V., and Thome, J. R., 2012, “A
Review of On-Chip Micro-Evaporation: Experimental Evaluation of Liquid
Pumping and Vapor Compression Driven Cooling Systems and Control,” Appl.
Energy, 92, pp. 147–161.
[20] Mancin, S., Zilio, C., Righetti, G., and Rossetto, L., 2013, “Mini Vapor Cycle
System for High Density Electronic Cooling Applications,” Int. J. Refrig.,
36(4), pp. 1191–1202.
[21] Womac, D. J., Ramadhyani, S., and Incropera, F. P., 1993, “Correlating Equa-
tions for Impingement Cooling of Small Heat Sources With Single Circular
Liquid Jets,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 115(1), pp. 106–115.
[22] Garimella, S. V., and Rice, R. A., 1995, “Confined and Submerged Liquid Jet
Impingement Heat Transfer,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 117(4), pp. 871–877.
[23] Lienhard, V. J. H., 1995, “Liquid Jet Impingement,” Annual Review of Heat
Transfer, Vol. 6, Begell House, New York, pp. 199–270.
[24] Pan, Y., and Webb, B. W., 1995, “Heat Transfer Characteristics of Arrays of
Free-Surface Liquid Jets,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 117(4), pp. 878–883.
[25] Whelan, B. P., and Robinson, A. J., 2009, “Nozzle Geometry Effects in Liquid
Jet Array Impingement,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 29(11–12), pp. 2211–2221.
[26] Lindeman, B. A., and Shedd, T. A., 2013, “Comparison of Empirical Correla-
tions and a Two-Equation Predictive Model for Heat Transfer to Arbitrary
Arrays of Single-Phase Impinging Jets,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 66, pp.
772–780.
[27] San, J.-Y., and Chen, J.-J., 2014, “Effects of Jet-to-Jet Spacing and Jet Height
on Heat Transfer Characteristics of an Impinging Jet Array,” Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer, 71, pp. 8–17.
[28] Qiu, L., Dubey, S., Choo, F. H., and Duan, F., 2015, “Recent Developments of Jet
Impingement Nucleate Boiling,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 89, pp. 42–58.
[29] Fabbri, M., Jiang, S., and Dhir, V. K., 2005, “A Comparative Study of Cooling
of High Power Density Electronics Using Sprays and Microjets,” ASME J.
Heat Transfer, 127(1), pp. 38–48.
[30] Meyer, M. T., Mudawar, I., Boyack, C. E., and Hale, C. A., 2006, “Single-
Phase and Two-Phase Cooling With an Array of Rectangular Jets,” Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer, 49(1–2), pp. 17–29.
[31] Browne, E. A., Michna, G. J., Jensen, M. K., and Peles, Y., 2010, “Microjet
Array Single-Phase and Flow Boiling Heat Transfer With R-134a,” Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer, 53(23–24), pp. 5027–5034.
[32] Wang, Z. Y., Wong, T. N., and Duan, F., 2011, “Submerged Liquid Jet
Impingement Cooling,” 13th Electronics Packaging Technology Conference
(EPTC), Singapore, Dec. 7–9, pp. 660–666.
[33] Whelan, B. P., Kempers, R., and Robinson, A. J., 2012, “A Liquid-Based Sys-
tem for CPU Cooling Implementing a Jet Array Impingement Waterblock and a
Tube Array Remote Heat Exchanger,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 39, pp. 86–94.
[34] Parida, P. R., Ekkad, S. V., and Ngo, K., 2012, “Impingement-Based High Per-
formance Cooling Configurations for Automotive Power Converters,” Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer, 55(4), pp. 834–847.
Journal of Electronic Packaging
Downloaded From: http://electronicpackaging.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jepae4/936321/ on 06/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
[35] Buchanan, R. A., and Shedd, T. A., 2013, “Extensive Parametric Study of Heat
Transfer to Arrays of Oblique Impinging Jets With Phase Change,” ASME J.
Heat Transfer, 135(11), p. 111017.
[36] Joshi, S. N., Rau, M. J., Dede, E. M., and Garimella, S. V., 2013, “An Experi-
mental Study of a Multi-Device Jet Impingement Cooler With Phase Change
Using HFE-7100,” ASME Paper No. HT2013-17059.
[37] Joshi, S. N., Rau, M. J., and Dede, E. M., 2013, “An Experimental Study of a
Single-Device Jet Impingement Cooler With Phase Change Using HFE-7100
and a Vapor Extraction Manifold,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2013-63249.
[38] Joshi, S. N., and Dede, E. M., 2015, “Effect of Sub-Cooling on Performance of
a Multi-Jet Two Phase Cooler With Multi-Scale Porous Surfaces,” Int. J.
Therm. Sci., 87, pp. 110–120.
[39] Maddox, J. F., Knight, R. W., and Bhavnani, S. H., 2015, “Local Thermal Meas-
urements of a Confined Array of Impinging Liquid Jets for Power Electronics
Cooling,” 31st Semiconductor Thermal Measurement, Modeling and Manage-
ment Symposium, (SEMI-THERM), San Jose, CA, Mar. 15–19, pp. 228–234.
[40] Gould, K., Cai, S. Q., Neft, C., and Bhunia, A., 2015, “Liquid Jet Impingement
Cooling of a Silicon Carbide Power Conversion Module for Vehicle
Applications,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 30(6), pp. 2975–2984.
[41] Sung, M. K., and Mudawar, I., 2009, “CHF Determination for High-Heat Flux
Phase Change Cooling System Incorporating Both Micro-Channel Flow and Jet
Impingement,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 52(3–4), pp. 610–619.
[42] Sung, M. K., and Mudawar, I., 2008, “Single-Phase and Two-Phase Cooling
Using Hybrid Micro-Channel/Slot-Jet Module,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer,
51(15–16), pp. 3825–3839.
[43] Sung, M. K., and Mudawar, I., 2008, “Single-Phase and Two-Phase Heat Transfer
Characteristics of Low Temperature Hybrid Micro-Channel/Micro-Jet Impinge-
ment Cooling Module,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 51(15–16), pp. 3882–3895.
[44] Barrau, J., Chemisana, D., Rosell, J., Tadrist, L., and Iba~ nez, M., 2010, “An
Experimental Study of a New Hybrid Jet Impingement/Micro-Channel Cooling
Scheme,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 30(14–15), pp. 2058–2066.
[45] Chien, L.-H., Liao, W.-R., and Liu, H.-Y., 2014, “An Experimental Study of
Two-Phase Convection in Micro-Channels With Impinging FC-72 Jets,” Appl.
Therm. Eng., 67(1–2), pp. 159–167.
[46] Muszynski, T., and Andrzejczyk, R., 2016, “Heat Transfer Characteristics of
Hybrid Microjet-Microchannel Cooling Module,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 93, pp.
1360–1366.
[47] Yan, Z. B., Toh, K. C., Duan, F., Wong, T. N., Choo, K. F., Chan, P. K., and
Chua, Y. S., 2010, “Experimental Study of Impingement Spray Cooling for
High Power Devices,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 30(10), pp. 1225–1230.
[48] Chunqiang, S., Shuangquan, S., Changqing, T., and Hongbo, X., 2012,
“Development and Experimental Investigation of a Novel Spray Cooling System
Integrated in Refrigeration Circuit,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 33–34, pp. 246–252.
[49] Tan, Y. B., Xie, J. L., Duan, F., Wong, T. N., Toh, K. C., Choo, K. F., Chan, P.
K., and Chua, Y. S., 2013, “Multi-Nozzle Spray Cooling for High Heat Flux
Applications in a Closed Loop System,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 54(2), pp. 372–379.
[50] Xie, J. L., Tan, Y. B., Wong, T. N., Duan, F., Toh, K. C., Choo, K. F., Chan, P.
K., and Chua, Y. S., 2014, “Multi-Nozzle Array Spray Cooling for Large Area
High Power Devices in a Closed Loop System,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 78,
pp. 1177–1186.
[51] Xu, H., Si, C., Shao, S., and Tian, C., 2014, “Experimental Investigation on
Heat Transfer of Spray Cooling With Isobutane (R-600a),” Int. J. Therm. Sci.,
86, pp. 21–27.
[52] Hou, Y., Liu, J., Su, X., Qian, Y., Liu, L., and Liu, X., 2015, “Experimental
Study on the Characteristics of a Closed Loop R-134a Spray Cooling,” Exp.
Therm. Fluid Sci., 61, pp. 194–200.
[53] Chen, S., Liu, J., Liu, X., and Hou, Y., 2015, “An Experimental Comparison of
Heat Transfer Characteristic Between R-134a and R-22 in Spray Cooling,”
Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 66, pp. 206–212.
[54] Oliveira, P. A., 2016, “Development of a Two-Phase Jet Heat Sink Integrated
With a Compact Refrigeration System for Electronics Cooling,” Ph.D. thesis,
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florian opolis, Brazil.
[55] Oliveira, P. A., and Barbosa, J. R., Jr., 2017, “Novel Two-Phase Jet Impinge-
ment Heat Sink for Active Cooling of Electronic Devices,” Appl. Therm. Eng.,
112, pp. 952–964.
[56] Oliveira, P. A., and Barbosa, J. R., Jr., 2016, “Two-Phase Jet Impingement Heat
Sink Integrated With a Compact Vapor Compression System for Electronics
Cooling,” IEEE Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermomechanical
Phenomena in Electronic Systems (ITHERM), Las Vegas, NV, May 31–June 3,
pp. 976–986.
[57] Lemmon, E. W., Huber, M. L., and McLinden, M., 2007, “NIST Reference
Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties (REFPROP): Version 8.0,”
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Boulder, CO.
[58] Coleman, H. W., and Steele, W. G., 2009, Experimentation, Validation, and
Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers, 3rd ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
[59] Hsieh, S.-S., Fan, T.-C., and Tsai, H.-H., 2004, “Spray Cooling Characteristics
of Water and R-134a—Part I: Nucleate Boiling,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer,
47(26), pp. 5703–5712.
SEPTEMBER 2017, Vol. 139 / 031005-11