Volume 5A: Heat Transfer 2019
DOI: 10.1115/gt2019-91897
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of Sweeping Jet on Area-Averaged Impingement Heat Transfer

Abstract: A series of sweeping jet-impingement experiments are conducted over a circular heated surface, with a main objective of understanding the impact of the unique flow field on the resulting heat transfer. The sweeping motion of the fluidic oscillator is influenced by the sweeping frequency and sweeping angle where each is directly dependent on the geometric design (i.e. internal feedback loops, mixing chamber, etc.). The target surface consists of a heated copper disk, where heater power is supplied to the bottom… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, it is consistent with experimental results of Agricola (2017), Park (2018 and Zhou (2019). In addition, experimental results of Osorio (2019) showed that stagnation zone disappeared when normalized injection distance was 2, and the cooling effectiveness was the best when normalized injection distance was 3. Kim (2019) found that the overall cooling effectiveness of fluidic oscillator was higher than normal jet when normalized injection distance was less than 5.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Moreover, it is consistent with experimental results of Agricola (2017), Park (2018 and Zhou (2019). In addition, experimental results of Osorio (2019) showed that stagnation zone disappeared when normalized injection distance was 2, and the cooling effectiveness was the best when normalized injection distance was 3. Kim (2019) found that the overall cooling effectiveness of fluidic oscillator was higher than normal jet when normalized injection distance was less than 5.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 88%