Multi-objective optimization of rectangular cooling channel design using Design of Experiments (DOE)
Zhenhua Wang,Yu Feng,Yuxin Yang,Jingyi Wang,Shuai Xu,Jiang Qin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2024.122507
IF: 6.4
2024-01-24
Applied Thermal Engineering
Abstract:In scramjet engines, the optimal design of a regenerative cooling channel is critical for cooling, reducing pressure loss on the walls of the combustion chamber and improving heat sink utilization of fuel. In this study, thermal performance factor ( η ) and proportion of chemical heat sink in total heat sink ( ψ ) are introduced as objective functions, additionally, multi-objective optimizations are performed on a rectangular cooling channel using the DOE (design of experiments) method. Two suitable regression models for objective functions η and ψ are quantitatively generated by employing the RSM (response surface methodology), and the R-squared of the regression models are 98.34 % and 97.44 %, respectively. The precision and dependability of the models, as well as the degree of significance of the variables including the mass flow rate ( ṁ ), aspect ratio ( AR ), and wall thickness ( t w ) are assessed via the ANOVA (analysis of variance). The results show that the linear variables x 1 ( ṁ ) and interaction variable x 1 x 2 ( ṁ , AR ) are the most essential variables in forecasting η and ψ , respectively. The complex effects of linear and interactive variables on the objective functions are discussed. When the cracking rate is less than 40 %, the effect of x 1 ( ṁ ) on η initially decreases and then increases. By contrast, x 3 ( t w ) causes an increase in η initially, followed by a decrease. The variables affecting ψ are x 1 ( ṁ ), x 2 ( AR ), and x 3 ( t w ), in the descending order in terms of effect degree. In addition, to optimize η and ψ simultaneously (weight distribution is equal to one-half for both sides), an optimal point with ṁ = 378.89 g/s, AR = 1, and t w = 1.5 mm is introduced, which yields η = 0.898 and ψ = 0.505. The maximum error between the value fitted using the regression model and the value calculated from simulations is 3.03 %.
energy & fuels,engineering, mechanical,thermodynamics,mechanics