Numerical Simulation of Cavity

Roughness Effects on Melt

Filling in Microinjection Molding
N. S. ONG, H. L. ZHANG, Y. C. LAM
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University,
Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Republic of Singapore

ABSTRACT: In microinjection molding, when dimensions of molded parts,

and thus the cavity are small, cavity roughness may become signicant for the
lling of polymer melt. In this paper, cavity roughness effects on lling polymer
melt ow into a thin circular cavity were investigated numerically with the aid of
a newly developed inlet-velocity iterative procedure. The roughness effects for
different mold and melt temperatures, cavity thicknesses, and injection rates were
investigated. The trends predicted by the numerical simulation are in good
agreement with those obtained from the experiment. When the surface roughness
approaches a signicant portion (e.g., 10%) of the cavity thickness, the effect of
surface roughness becomes extremely pronounced especially at lower mold
C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Adv Polym
temperatures and injection velocities. 
Techn 27: 8997, 2008; Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/adv.20118

KEY WORDS: Injection molding, Modeling, Roughness effects, Simulations

Introduction

njection molding is one of the most common processes for cost-effective mass production of plas-

Correspondence to: N. S. Ong; e-mail: mnsong@ntu.edu.sg.

Contract grant sponsor: Nanyang Technological University.
Contract grant sponsor: Moldow Pty Ltd.

Advances in Polymer Technology, Vol. 27, No. 2, 8997 (2008)


C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

tic micro parts. In microinjection molding, cavity

roughness, which is insignicant in conventional
(or macro) molding, may play an important role,
as it could signicantly change the cavity volume
and heat transfer between polymer melt and mold.1
Although some researchers have investigated the
roughness effects on uid ow in microchannels,
conduits, and tubes,27 the uids investigated were
mostly Newtonian and in high Reynolds numbers.

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF CAVITY ROUGHNESS EFFECTS

ness effects on ow area were investigated in more
dimensions.

Mathematical and Numerical

Modeling
GOVERNING EQUATIONS
FIGURE 1. Schematic diagram of the cavity filling
encountered in the experiment.

Therefore, the conclusions obtained from these research may not be applicable to the polymer melt
ow, which is high viscous, non-Newtonian, and in
low Reynolds number.
The roughness effects in microinjection molding
have been investigated by some researchers. Smialek
and Simpson8 pointed out that the increase of mold
surface roughness can prevent slippage during cavity lling and lead to a more appealing surface for
the molded parts. Theilade et al.9 found out that a
rough cavity surface yields a lower linear shrinkage.
Grifths et al.10 observed that the cavity roughness
has inuence in the level of turbulence of the melt
ow. However, its effect on the slip-stick phenomena was not identied. In our previous work,1,11,12
experiment was performed to investigate roughness
effects on ow area (or volume) through the lling of
a thin circular cavity with polyoxymethylene (POM).
Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram of the cavity
lling investigated in the experiment. The wall of
the cavity insert is smooth with comparatively negligible surface roughness. The core wall of the cavity
has different surface roughness, but the same roughness mean lines on its two semicircular halves. The
separating line between the two semicircular halves
of the core insert was adjusted vertically in the mold
such that gravity has the same effect on the two cavity halves during the cavity lling. As a result, the
two semicircular cavity halves are lled under the
same processing conditions, and the difference in
ow areas between the two halves is predominantly
caused by the difference in surface roughness between the two halves of the core insert. In the experiment, roughness values, cavity thicknesses, mold,
and melt temperatures were varied.
In this work, an inlet-velocity iterative numerical
procedure was developed to simulate the case encountered in our previous experiment. The rough-

90

During cavity lling, polymer melt ow is governed by the mass, momentum, and energy conservation equations. The melt and air are assumed to be
incompressible. The gravity effect is neglected, considering the fact that gravity force is very small as
compared with viscous force for the melt.13 The surface tension and wall slip effects are also neglected as
the dimensions of the molded parts discussed in this
work are much larger than 10 m.14,15 Furthermore,
the properties of the uids, such as density, thermal
conductivity, specic heat, and so on are assumed to
be constant. As a result, the governing equations for
the polymer melt ow are written as
Continuity equation
v = 0

(1)

Momentum equation


v
+ v v
t


= p + ( ),
= v + ( v )T

(2)

Energy equation

C p

T
+ v T
t


= (kT) + 2 ,

=

1
:
2

(3)

where v , p, and T are velocity vector, shear rate

tensor, pressure, and temperature, respectively; , ,
k, Cp, and are density, viscosity, thermal conductivity, specic heat, and shear rate, respectively.

MODELING OF THERMAL PROPERTIES

IN ROUGHNESS REGION
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the thermal properties of
polymer melt ow in the roughness region are modeled as
(y) = (y)1 + (1 (y))2

Advances in Polymer Technology

(4)

DOI 10.1002/adv

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF CAVITY ROUGHNESS EFFECTS

FIGURE 2. The procedure to determine value.

where 1 and 2 are the thermal properties of the
melt and the mold respectively, such as thermal
conductivity and heat capacity, and is the area fraction that will be occupied by the melt at the crosssectional plate of y.
To obtain value on the cross-sectional plate of y,
the area of the void regions is expressed as a 1 , a 2
a n , and the total area of the plate is A. Therefore, the
ratio of the void area with the total cross-sectional
area can be expressed as
n
(y) =

a i (y)
A

i=1

(5)

where a i and thus is a function of y.

VISCOSITY MODEL FOR POLYMER MELT

The Cross-Williams, Landel, Ferry (WLF) law is
used to model polymer melt viscosity, which is written as
0 (T, P)
1 + (0 (T, P) / )1n


A1 (T T )
0 (T, P) = D1 exp
A2 + (T T )

(T, , P) =

(6)

where
T (P) = D2 + D3 P
A2 = A2 + D3 P
n, , D1 , D2 , D3 , A1 , A 2 are constants.

FLOW FRONT CAPTURING

The melt ow front is captured by using the level
set method.16 A scalar variable is used to identify
the interface between the melt and air, that is the
zero-level set of indicates the polymerair inter-

Advances in Polymer Technology

DOI 10.1002/adv

face, < 0 polymer occupied region and > 0 air

occupied region. is transported by the uid motion. The transport equation of the level set function,
, is written as

+u
 = 0,
t

|| = 1

(7)

To maintain as a distance function at all time

steps, a redistancing (or reinitializing) equation is
dened as

= sign()(1 | |), (x,

 0) = (x,
 t + t) (8)
t
The steady-state solution of are the values of
at time t + t.
To avoid mass loss or addition of polymer melt, a
global mass conservation scheme proposed by Yap
et al. was used.17

FLUID PROPERTIES NEAR FLOW FRONT

As the governing equations are solved in the entire computing domain, the sudden change in the
properties at the interface between polymer melt
and air (e.g., density and viscosity) will bring a big
challenge to the stability and convergence of the numerical solution. Therefore, a Heaviside function18
is used to dene a smeared interface. The property
near the polymerair interface is calculated by using
the following equation:
= (1 h)1 + h2

(9)

where 1 and 2 are the properties of polymer melt

and air, respectively, and h is written as


+
1
h=
+
sin

2
1

<
||

(10)

>

91

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF CAVITY ROUGHNESS EFFECTS

as

V1 =

V1 U 
V1 + U 

P>0
P<0

(13)

V2 = 2Uin V1
where U is the change in the inlet velocities for
each iteration, which can be determined by using
the following equation:
U = Uin

(14)

FIGURE 3. Schematic diagram of the inlet-velocity

iterative procedure.

where is related to the grid size and is usually taken

as a factor of the grid spacing. A thickness of 2 is
recommended.19,20

INLET-VELOCITY ITERATIVE PROCEDURE

To simulate the cavity lling encountered in the
previous experiment as shown in Fig. 1, an inletvelocity iterative procedure was developed. Polymer lling of the two semicircular cavity halves is
simulated simultaneously. As shown in Fig. 3, for
each half, the lling ow is assumed to be asymmetric. The pressures at the centers O1 and O2 should be
the same, that is, P1 = P2 . However, the inlet velocities on the two halves (i.e., V1 and V2 ) are expected
to be different due to the roughness effects. The different inlet velocities thus lead to the different ow
areas on the two cavity halves. The average of the
inlet velocities on the two halves should equal to the
physical injection velocity Uin .
At the beginning of the rst time step, it is assumed that the inlet velocities on the two halves are
the same, that is,
V1 = V2 = Uin

(11)

Because of the roughness effects, the same inlet

velocities for the two halves (i.e., V1 and V2 ) will
result in different predicted pressures, namely, P1
and P2 , that is,
P = P1 P2

(12)

To make P = 0, the inlet velocities V1 and

V2 are adjusted synchronously through iterations

92

where is the percentage of Uin , typically from 1%

to 5%.
From Eq. (13), if P > 0, V1 will be decreased in
the next iteration to obtain a lower P1 and a higher
P2 , and thus smaller P. Similarly, if P < 0, V1 will
be increased in the next iteration to obtain a higher
P1 and a lower P2 , and thus also smaller P.
As it is difcult or even impossible to make P
= 0 through the inlet-velocity iterations, a tolerance
range of P (i.e., PL) is dened to control the number of the iterations, that is, if the following criteria
is satised, the iteration for the current time step
terminates and for the next time step to start.
|P1 P2 |
< PL
0.5(P1 + P2 )

(15)

where PL is a percentage value typically ranging

from 1% to 5%, depending on the required accuracy
in P between the two halves.

INITIAL AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Initially, the melt is assumed to rest somewhere
in the cavity. At the inlet, the injection velocity and
the temperature of polymer melt are kept constant.
At the outlet, the outow boundary condition is
imposed such that air can freely escape from the
outlet. The temperature of the melt/mold interface (i.e., the effective wall) is assumed to be the
same as the preset mold temperature. To allow occurrence of the fountain ow and advancement of
the melt ow front, the boundary conditions of the
ow eld will change dynamically, i.e., the no-slip
boundary condition is imposed on the melt wetted
walls, and free-slip boundary condition on the air
occupied walls.13,21 At the symmetric axis, the zero
gradient boundary condition is imposed for the velocity, temperature, and level set variables.

Advances in Polymer Technology

DOI 10.1002/adv

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF CAVITY ROUGHNESS EFFECTS

SOLUTION PROCEDURE

TABLE I
22

The nite volume method of Patankar was

used to solve all the partial differential equations.
A xed and staggered grid was used to discretize
the cavity domain, with the scalar variables stored
in the centers of the control volumes, whereas
the velocities were located at the control volume
faces. The coupling between velocity and pressure
in the momentum equation was handled by the
SIMPLER algorithm, and the diffusionconvection
effect was modeled by the power-law scheme. The
fully implicit scheme was used to discretize the
transient term. The upwind scheme was used to
model the convection of the level set equations. The
resulting algebraic equations were solved by using
the TriDiagonal Maxtrix Algorithm.

Numerical Results and

Discussion
The numerical procedure was used to simulate
the case encountered in the experiment.12 The inlet
and cavity diameters, cavity thickness, mold, and
melt temperatures used in the simulation were consistent with those used in the experiment. The height
of the roughness layer () was 25 m on the rougher
half and zero on the smoother half of the core insert.
The roughness elements were assumed to be rectangle and uniformly distributed on the core wall, that
is, (y) = 0.5 in the roughness layer. Figure 4 shows
the schematic diagram of the cavity lling investigated through the numerical simulation.
In the simulation, the material used was POM.
Air viscosity used was 1.0 s1 instead of its real

FIGURE 4. Schematic diagram of the cavity filling in the

simulation.

Advances in Polymer Technology

DOI 10.1002/adv

The Constants in the Cross-WLF Model for POM

Material
POM

* (Pa)

D 1 (Pa s) D 2 (K) D 3 A 1 A 2 (K)

0.382 2.29 105 7.54 1012 223

0 28.5 51.6

TABLE II
Properties of the POM Melt, Air, and Mold Material
Material
POM melt
Air
Mold (steel)

(kg m3 ) k (W (m K)1 ) Cp (J (kg K)1 )

1153
1.0
7800

0.14
0.037
29

2101
1.0
460

viscosity, which is in the order of 105 Pa s. This

is to enhance the stability and convergence of the
numerical solution but will not lead to signicant
inaccuracy.13,21 Table I gives the constants in the
Cross-WLF model for POM and Table II gives the
properties of POM, air, and mold material that were
used in the simulation.

ASSESSMENT OF SIMULATION ACCURACY

The simulation result of the melt ow front development was rst compared with the analytical
result. Based on the mass conservation principle, the
average position of the melt front in the radial direction at time t can be obtained analytically as

r (t) =

2 H + d 2U t
dini
eff
1 in
4Heff

(16)

where dini is the initial position of the melt front,

which is 0.6 mm, d1 is the diameter of the inlet, which
is 0.4 mm, Heff is the effective cavity thickness, and
Uin is the inlet velocity. Figure 5 shows the analytical
and simulation results of the average ow front positions in the radial direction at different time steps,
where the melt (Tmelt ) and mold (Tmold ) temperatures
were 453 K and 323 K, respectively. Heff = 0.4 mm,
Uin = 2.0 m/s1 , and the roughness () was zero. It
can be observed that the analytical and simulation
results are in good agreement.
Another factor that may affect simulation accuracy is the density of grids used to discretize the
cavity domain. In general, if more grids are used,
the solution will be more accurate, at the expense of
computing time. Figure 6 shows the predicted pressure development for different number of grids. At

93

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF CAVITY ROUGHNESS EFFECTS

FIGURE 5. Analytical and simulation results of the melt

flow front development with Tmelt = 453 K, Twall = 323 K,
Uin = 2.0 m s1 , H eff = 0.4 mm, and = 0.
the initial time steps (e.g., before 0.025 s), the predicted pressures for different number of grids are
obviously different. However, at the later time steps
(e.g., after 0.025 s), the predicted pressures are quite
close to each other. Therefore, the appropriate number of grids to be used depends on the specic problem investigated. For qualitative study, larger grids
can be used to save computing time.
Although the time step values used will not cause
divergence of the solution due to the implicit scheme
used, it does however inuence simulation accuracy.
In general, using a smaller time step value will result
in more accurate simulation result at the expense

FIGURE 6. Predicted pressure development for

different number of grids.

94

FIGURE 7. Predicted pressure development for two

different time step values.
of computing time. Figure 7 shows the predicted
pressure development for two different time step
values. It can be observed that the simulation results
for the two values are quite close. Therefore, a larger
time step can be used to save computing time.

INVESTIGATIONS OF ROUGHNESS
EFFECTS
In the simulation, and PL are set as 1% and 1%,
respectively. Nonuniform grids were used to discretize the computing domain, with ner grids near
the roughness layer. Figure 8 shows the development of the inlet velocities on the two semicircular

FIGURE 8. Inlet velocity development on the two halves

with Tmold = 323 K, Tmelt = 453 K, H eff = 0.3 mm, and
Uin = 23.5 m s1 .

Advances in Polymer Technology

DOI 10.1002/adv

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF CAVITY ROUGHNESS EFFECTS

FIGURE 10. Flow area development on the two halves.

FIGURE 9. Predicted pressure development on the two
halves.

halves. The cavity thickness was 300 m. The injection velocity (i.e., Uin ) was 23.5 m/s1 , and the mold
and melt temperatures were 323 K and 453 K, respectively. It can be observed that the melt ows faster on
the smoother half than it does on the rougher half.
Furthermore, the ow speed increases with time on
the smoother half and decreases correspondingly on
the rougher half. Figure 9 shows the pressure development on the two cavity halves. It can be observed
that the pressures on the two halves obtained by
using the iterative procedure are quite close.
Using the inlet velocity values obtained, the ow
area on each cavity half at the nth time step can be
calculated by using the following equation:
Area =

n
Ain t 
Vi
2Heff

(17)

i=1

where Ain is the inlet cross-sectional area, t is the

time step value used in the simulation, H is effective cavity thickness, and Vi is the inlet velocity on
the half at the ith time step. Figure 10 shows the
plot of the ow areas on the two halves with the
total ow area. It can be observed that the ow areas on the two halves increase almost linearly with
time and the difference in the ow areas between
the two halves becomes larger with the increase
of the total ow area. This is in good agreement with
the experimental observations.12
To facilitate the analysis of the surface roughness
effect for various molding conditions, the impact factor k, which is dened as the ratio of ow area on the

Advances in Polymer Technology

DOI 10.1002/adv

rougher half with ow area of the entire part, was

used to quantify the roughness effects, that is,
Ar = kAt

(18)

where Ar stands for the ow area of the rougher half,

At stands for the entire ow area of the part, and k
is the slope, which identies the signicance of the
roughness effect. As the slope (k) is dened using
the rougher half, it is expected that the k value is
bounded between 0 and 0.5. There will be negligible
roughness effect if k = 0.5, indicating the same ow
area on the two halves. The larger the difference in k
value from 0.5, the more signicant is the roughness
effects.
For the mold temperature of 323 K and melt temperature of 453 K, the k value is 0.477, with the regressive coefcient of 0.999 (see Fig. 10). Similarly,
the k values for other combinations of the mold and
melt temperatures were obtained. Figure 11 summarizes the k values for the different mold and melt
temperatures. It can be observed that an increase
in the mold temperature results in an increase in k
value for a constant melt temperature, that is, the
higher the mold temperature, the less signicant is
the roughness effect. This is because an increase in
the mold temperature reduces the overall viscosity
of the polymer melt in the roughness region, and
thus facilitates ow lling. An increase in the melt
temperature also results in an increase in the k value
for a constant mold temperature. Furthermore, an increase in the mold temperature results in an increase
of 2.1% in k value for the constant melt temperature
of 453 K and an increase of 2.07% for the constant

95

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF CAVITY ROUGHNESS EFFECTS

FIGURE 11. k values for different mold and melt

temperatures.

FIGURE 12. k values for different cavity thicknesses

with Tmold = 323 K and Tmelt = 453 K.

melt temperature of 473 K. This indicates that the

change in k value is more sensitive to the change in
the melt temperature when the mold temperature
is at a lower level. Similarly, an increase in the melt
temperature results in an increase of 1.05% in k value
for the constant mold temperature of 323 K and an
increase of 1.02% for the constant mold temperature
of 383 K. This indicates the k value is more sensitive to the change in the mold temperature when the
melt temperature is at a lower level. These trends
predicted by the simulation are also in good agreement with those obtained from the experiment.
To investigate the roughness effects for different
cavity thicknesses, the cavity thicknesses were set
at 50, 100, 300, 400, and 600 m, respectively, in the
simulation. The mold and melt temperatures were
323 K and 453 K, respectively. The injection velocity was 23.5 m s1 , corresponding to the injection
rate of 3 mm3 s1 in the experiment. The time step
value was 5 105 s. Figure 12 shows the k values for
the different thicknesses together with the regressive
logarithm tted curve against the k values. It can be
observed that the logarithm function can approximately reect the relation between k value and cavity thickness. For the cavity thickness less than 150
m, that is, the ratio between the effective roughness and the effective thickness is 17%, a change
in the thickness will result in signicantly different
roughness effects. However, for the cavity thickness
larger than 150 m, the change in the roughness
effects is not signicant for different thicknesses.
This indicates that the signicance of roughness effects is not always linearly proportional to the cav-

ity thickness, but there is a critical thickness value.

Within the critical value, the thickness is signicant
for the roughness effects, that is, a small change in
the thickness can lead to a signicant change in the
roughness effects. However, above the critical value,
the thickness is less signicant, that is, the change
in the thickness will not lead to signicant change in
the roughness effects.
To investigate the signicance of injection velocity
for the roughness effects, injection velocities of 0.01,
0.1, 1.0, and 23.5 m s1 were used in the simulation.
The mold and melt temperatures were 323 K and
453 K, respectively. The effective cavity thickness
(Heff ) was 100 m. The time step value was 5 105 .
Figure 13 shows the k values obtained for different
injection velocities together with the regressive logarithm tted curve against the k values. Similar to
the cavity thickness for the roughness effects, a logarithm function can be used to approximate the relation between k value and the injection velocity, that
is, there is a critical injection velocity value. Within
the critical value, the roughness effect is signicantly
dependent on the injection velocity, whereas, above
this critical value, the roughness effect is not signicantly dependent on the injection velocity. This
observation justies the assumption made in the experiment that the injection velocity is not a signicant factor for the roughness effects. As the injection
velocities used in the experiment are always larger
than 15.7 m s1 (i.e., very high relatively to the cavity dimensions), a small variation of injection rates
will not lead to a signicant change in the roughness
effects.

96

Advances in Polymer Technology

DOI 10.1002/adv

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF CAVITY ROUGHNESS EFFECTS

a critical thickness value. Within the critical value,
the cavity thickness plays an important role in the
roughness effects. Above it, the roughness effect is
not signicantly dependent on the cavity thickness.
For the injection rate, there is a similar logarithmic
relation between k value and injection rate.

References

FIGURE 13. k values for different injection velocities

with Tmold = 323 K, Tmelt = 453 K and Heff = 100 m.

4. Koo, J.; Kleinstreuer, C. J Micromech Microeng 2003, 13, 568

579.
5. Koo, J.; Kleinstreuer, C. Int J Heat Mass Trans 2005, 48, 2625
2634.
6. Hu, Y. D.; Werner, C.; Li, D. Q. J Fluids Eng 2003, 125, 871879.

Conclusion
The roughness effects on ow area were investigated numerically with the aid of a developed
inlet-velocity iterative procedure. The procedure
can simulate the development of melt ow front
quite accurately. The numerical results revealed
that cavity roughness does resist polymer melt
ow during lling the hot melt into the cavity at
a lower temperature. However, the signicance of
roughness effects is dependent on mold and melt
temperatures, cavity thickness, and injection rate.
The trends of the roughness effects for different
mold and melt temperatures obtained from the
simulation are in good agreement with those
obtained from the experiment, that is, when the
melt temperature is kept constant, an increase in
the mold temperature will reduce the roughness
effects. Furthermore, the mold temperature is more
signicant for the roughness effects when the melt
temperature is kept constant at a low level. Similarly,
when the mold temperature is kept constant, an
increase in the melt temperature will also reduce
the roughness effects. The melt temperature is more
signicant for the roughness effects when the mold
temperature is kept constant at a low level. The relation between k value and the cavity thickness can be
approximated by a logarithm function. There exists

Advances in Polymer Technology

1. Zhang, H. L.; Ong, N. S.; Lam, Y. C. Polym Eng Sci 2007, 47,
20122019.
2. Croce, G.; Agaro, P. D. Superlattices Microstruct 2004, 35,
601616.
3. Kandlikar, S. G.; Joshi, S.; Tian. S. R. Heat Transfer Eng 2003,
24, 416.

DOI 10.1002/adv

7. Qu, W. L.; Mala, G. H.; Li, D. Q. Int J Heat Mass Trans 2000,
43, 39253936.
8. Smialek, C. D.; Simpson, C. L. In ANTEC 1998, Vol. 3,
pp. 33733377.
9. Theilade, U. R.; Kjaer, E. M.; Hansen, H. N. In ANTEC 2003,
Vol. 1, pp. 463467.
10. Grifths, C. A.; Dimov, S. S.; Brousseau, E. B.; Hoyle, R. T. J
Mater Process Tech 2007, 189, 418427.
11. Zhang, H. L.; Ong, N. S.; Lam, Y. C. Int J Adv Manuf Tech
2008, 37, 11051112.
12. Zhang, H. L.; Ong, N. S.; Lam, Y. C. Polym Eng Sci 2008, 48,
490495.
13. Haagh, G.; Vosse, F. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 1998, 28,
13551369.
14. Yao, D. G.; Kim, B. J Micromech Microeng 2002, 12, 604610.
15. Young, W. B. Appl Math Model 2007, 31, 17981806.
16. Osher, S.; Sethian, A. J Comput phys 1988, 79, 249.
17. Yap, Y. F.; Chai, J. C.; Wong, T. N.; Toh, K. C.; Zheng, H. Y.
Numer Heat Tr B-Fund 2005, 50, 455472.
18. Chang, Y. C.; Hou, T. Y.; Merriman, B.; Osher, S. J Comput
phys 1996, 124, 449464.
19. Sussman, M.; Puckett, E. G. J Comput Phys 2000, 162, 301
337.
20. Sussman, M.; Smereka, P.; Osher, S. J Comput phys 1994, 114,
146159.
21. Chang, R. Y.; Yang, R. Y. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 2001,
37, 125148.
22. Patankar, S. V. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow;
Hemisphere: Washington, DC, 1980.

97