1. First Experimental Tests 08/04/20141/18

2. First Experimental Tests Temperature sensors 08/04/20142/18

3. Differences with the final configuration: Pyrex Araldite 2020 Heaters to simulate the 10 read out chips 15 Temperature sensors: -5 on the Silicon Sensor -5 on the chips (left side) -5 on the chips (right side) First Experimental Tests 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 15 14 13 12 11 Baseline Device #031 + Si Heater #31112 08/04/20143/18

4. CFD Simulations 2 microchannels Pyrex ρ = 2.23 g/cm 3 ; Cp = 0.84 kJ/kgK; k= 1.4 W/mK, s=0.525 mm Araldite 2020 ρ = 1.1 g/cm 3 ; Cp = 1.9 kJ/kgK; k= 0.3 W/mK, s= ? (0.03 mm) Silicon (Sensor/Microch.) ρ = 2.33 g/cm 3 ; Cp = 0.7 kJ/kgK; k= 148 W/mK, s= 0.2 mm) Cooling Fluid (FC72) ρ = 1.68 g/cm 3 ; Cp = 1.1 kJ/kgK; k= 0.057 W/mK) 08/04/20144/18

5. Heating EoCPixel Matrix [W] 00 101.5 203 304.5 406.5 (Digital)(Analog) Comparison between CFD Simulation and Experimental Tests Experimental Tests Heating EoCPixel Matrix [W] 00 203 406.5 (Digital)(Analog) T IN = -20°C T IN = -25°C T IN = -30°C CFD simulations T IN = -20°C T IN = -25°C T IN = -30°C Mass Flow = 8g/s Nominal Power 08/04/20145/18

6. Comparison between CFD Simulation and Experimental Tests TT stand_IN TT 12-4_IN TT 7-9_SENSOR TT 2-14_OUT TT stand_OUT [˚C][°C] -13.53 -13.19-12.94-12.99 -13.53 -12.58 -6.67-9.90-4.18 -9.91 -12.37 -0.41-6.934.33 -7.11 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 15 14 13 12 11 T IN = -20°C TT stand_IN TT 12-4_IN TT 7-9_SENSOR TT 2-14_OUT TT stand_OUT [˚C][°C] -17.05 -16.75-16.45-16.54 -17.05 -17.16 -10.29-13.41-7.79 -14.39 -17.24 -3.70-10.291.15 -11.63 TT stand_IN TT 12-4_IN TT 7-9_SENSOR TT 2-14_OUT TT stand_OUT [˚C][°C] -23.68 -21.03-20.67-20.80 -21.21 -23.77 -14.52-17.59-11.99 -18.50 -23.82 -8.29-14.51-3.49 -15.77 T IN = -25°C T IN = -30°C Experimental Tests T stand_IN T stand_OUT 08/04/20146/18

7. Comparison between CFD Simulation and Experimental Tests TT stand_IN T Chip_Sx T SENSOR T Chip_Dx T OUT [˚C][°C] T IN = -20°CT IN = -25°C T IN = -30°C CFD simulations Chip_Sx Chip_Dx Si Sensor Inlet Pyrex Same inlet temperature of the Exp. Tests Heating EoCPixel Matrix [W] 00 203 406.5 (Digital)(Analog) 08/04/20147/18

8. DIFFERENCE TT Chip_Sx TT SENSOR TT Chip_Dx T OUT [°C] -0.34-0.60-0.530.00 0.42-0.28-0.660.20 0.70-0.41-0.840.80 DIFFERENCE TT Chip_Sx TT SENSOR TT Chip_Dx T OUT [°C] -0.30-0.60-0.510.00 -0.50-1.32-1.600.13 -0.80-1.86-2.420.55 DIFFERENCE TT Chip_Sx TT SENSOR TT Chip_Dx T OUT [°C] -0.18-0.54-0.410.00 -0.42-1.30-1.550.09 -0.34-1.79-1.900.57 Note: coarse evaluation of the exp. tests error T 08/04/20148/18

9. DIFFERENCE TT Chip_Sx TT SENSOR TT Chip_Dx T OUT [°C] 0.00 0.750.31-0.120.20 1.040.18-0.300.80 DIFFERENCE TT Chip_Sx TT SENSOR TT Chip_Dx T OUT [°C] 0.00 -0.20-0.73-1.090.13 -0.50-1.27-1.910.55 DIFFERENCE TT Chip_Sx TT SENSOR TT Chip_Dx T OUT [°C] 0.00 -0.24-0.76-1.140.09 -0.15-1.25-1.490.57 After PT100 calibration Good similarity – Exp. and CFD results Difference especially for the 2 nd chip (chip_dx) and the sensor 08/04/20149/18

10. Differences may be due to: -Errors in the evaluation of the thickness of the araldite layers -Variation of the mass flow rate and errors in the evaluation of the corresponding flow velocity -Presence of heat exchange with the environment (convection and radiation) that is neglected in the model -Variation of the chips heating power -Inaccuracy in the temperature sensors 08/04/201410/18

11. Differences may be due to: -Errors in the evaluation of the thickness of the araldite layers -Variation of the mass flow rate and errors in the evaluation of the corresponding flow velocity The simulation were repeated for different thickness and mass flow rate negligible differences were observed 08/04/201411/18

12. Differences may be due to: -Presence of heat exchange with the environment (convection and radiation) that is neglected in the model -Variation of the chips heating power Test repeated for a chosen Power-Temperature condition with convection and varying the heating power of the EoC (Digital) 08/04/201412/18

13. Influence mainly on the 2 nd part also when only convection is introduced Differences TT Chip_Sx TT SENSOR TT Chip_Dx T OUT No corrections-0.20-0.73-1.090.13 Convection-0.04-0.46-0.770.31 Power increase-0.14-0.66-0.370.35 1.The introduction of the convection heat transfer improves the similarity with the experimental results 2.A small difference on the power supply correspond to a significant difference in temperature - an increase of 10% of power supply (22.13W instead of 20.12W) correspond to a temperature difference over the chip about one degree 08/04/201413/18

14. Min = -0.005 Max = 0.005 Δ = 0.010 Min = 19.21 W Max = 21.24 W Δ = 2.03 W Min = -0.001 Max = 0.001 Δ = 0.020 Min = 2.04 W Max = 4.72 W Δ = 2.68 W Min = 39.31 W Max = 42.08 W Δ = 2.78 W Min = 7.83 W Max = 4.49 W Δ = 3.34 W Constant value of power supply difficult to reach 08/04/201414/18

15. 08/04/2014 Temperature difference over the sensor of 1.7°C Good uniformity Temperature distribution over the Si Sensor 15/18 Note: values for T=-20°C and Nominal Power Similar temperature distribution are achieved with the other test conditions

16. 08/04/2014 The temperature varies significantly along the section The exact position of the temperature sensors is important Same temperature on the bottom surface EoC Chip sx ΔT = 1.5 °C EoC Chip dx ΔT = 3.6 °C Sensor ΔT=1.7°C 16/18 Note: values for T=-20°C and Nominal Power Similar temperature distribution are achieved with the other test conditions

17. Improvement suggested for the following experimental tests: 1.Higher accuracy in the temperature sensors calibration 2.Better control of the power supply 3.Note the exact position of the sensors 4.Note ambient temperature for the evaluation of the heat transfer toward the environment 5.[…] 08/04/201417/18

18. 08/04/2014 Future plans: 1.Setup of the CFD simulation for the real prototype 2.Both final models will be shared on the server with a reference technical note 18/18