Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
contraction losses were already included [9]. Thus, the TABLE 1 – Coefficients for equation (10)
head losses were expressed by Expansion Ke
Laminar Turbulent
L V2 V2
∆Pc + ∆P f + ∆Pe = 4 f a ρ + Keρ (6) A0 1.000 1.000
Dh 2 2 A1 -2.400 -2.083
Due to airflow leakage into the tip bypass region, the A2 1.000 1.005
friction pressure losses along the tip clearance and the B0 1.000 1.000
interfin channels were evaluated using the average B1 -2.800 -2.125
velocities at the entrance and exits. The leakage pressure B2 1.000 0.976
loss between nodes 2 and 3 in Figure 2 were evaluated as
friction losses for a length equal to half the fin height. section, as indicated in Figure 1. Since the heat sink was
The critical Reynolds number in the interfin and in the centered in the duct, the lateral channels were treated as
bypass channels was evaluated by a correlation derived a single channel. Both bypass channels were associated
[7] from data presented in [10] for flow in rectangular to rectangular ducts with the same cross section and with
ducts with abrupt entrance: aspect ratio (α ≤ 1) obtained as follows. For the lateral
Re c = 3035 − 4498α + 10719α 2 − 11285α 3 + 4233α 4 (7) bypass channel the aspect ratio α was either equal to the
ratio [(w - wm)/(2hf)] or its reciprocal and for the tip
For laminar flow the apparent friction factor was
bypass channel, it was either [(h - hf)/wm] or its
approximated [7] by
reciprocal.
3.435 16φ −1 + 1.25(4 X ) −1 − 3.435 X −0.5 Equation (4) applied to nodes 1-3 together with eq. (5)
f a . Re = + (8)
X 0.5 1 + 0.00021X − 2 to the 3 parallel branches and equation (5) comprised a
system of 8 equations associated to the flow network
2 11 L/ D
where φ = + α (2 − α ) and X = indicated in Figure 2. In the presence of bypass regions,
3 24 Re they were solved by an iterative procedure based on the
For turbulent flows, the apparent friction factor was
SIMPLE algorithm from the knowledge of the total flow
obtained from a correlation presented in [9]: rate Q in the duct. Basically, a pressure drop (∆P14)
across the heat sink was guessed and the corresponding
f a = A(φ . Re) B (9) flow rates Qi in each parallel flow branch indicated in
Figure 2 were obtained. If the sum of the parallel Qi was
1.01612
where A = 0.09290 + not equal to the known Q, a correction was made in the
( L / D) previous pressure drop and the process was repeated until
0.31930 convergence was attained.
and B = −0.26800 −
( L / D)
2.2. Convective heat transfer
The expansion coefficient Ke was obtained [7] from the
values presented in Kays (1950) for parallel plates (with The convective heat transfer rate from the heat sink
aspect ratio α = 0) and for ducts of square (α = 1) cross was evaluated with the previously obtained flow
section. It was expressed by distribution in the presence of bypass regions. The
incoming airflow (Ti) and the heat sink base (Tw)
K e = (1 − α ).( A0 + A1σ + A2σ 2 ) + α .( B 0 + B1σ + B 2σ 2 ) (10) temperatures were assumed uniform. The convective
The coefficients Ai and Bi used in this equation are heat transfer rate was expressed by
presented in Table 1. The contraction area ratio σ was
q s = h * Atη0 (Tb − Ti ) (12)
obtained either from the geometry or from mass
conservation: The convective heat transfer coefficient h* was expressed
s U U in terms of the incoming airflow temperature, and the
σf = , σl = , σt = (11) heat sink overall thermal efficiency η0 was
s+t U l U t
Af
respectively for the interfin (f), the lateral (l) and the tip ηo = 1 − (1 − η f ) (13)
(t) airflow paths. At
The hydraulic diameter concept was employed for all The finned (Af) and total (At) areas were obtained from
the flow channels across the heat sink. The interfin the heat sink geometry, while the fin efficiency (ηf) was
channels were those of rectangular cross section with the the standard relation for an adiabatic fin tip with a
fin height (hf) and spacing (s). The lateral and the tip correction for the fin length.
bypass channels were assumed those of trapezoidal cross For laminar flows in the interfin channels, the average
Tomazeti, C.A. and Altemani, C.A.C.
A Compact Model for Heat Sinks with Experimental Verification
Nusselt number was obtained from a correlation upstream wall. The heat sink pressure drop was obtained
developed by Sparrow [11] for the entrance region of a from the difference of the gage pressures in the chamber
flat plate rectangular duct. It considered a duct with downstream the rectangular duct with and without the
uniform temperature and velocity profiles at the entrance heat sink. The airflow rate was obtained from the
and isothermal walls: pressure difference between the two chambers in
1/ 2 conjunction with a calibrated metering nozzle.
* h * Dh 0,664 Gz Pr
Nu = = 1 + 7,3( )1 / 2 (14) The tests to determine the thermal resistance were
k 1 / 6 Gz made with an aluminum heat sink with an electrical
Pr
Re Pr heater attached below the heat sink base. A guard heater
where Gz = and Pr ≈ 1 was employed below the main heater to minimize the
L / Dh
thermal losses.
For turbulent flow, the adopted correlation for the Three heat sinks were built for the experimental tests -
average Nu was that presented by Bhatti and Shah [12] two made of plexiglass and one of Aluminum. The three
for the abrupt entrance of circular ducts and Pr = 0.7: heat sinks were used for the pressure drop tests and that
made of aluminum was employed also for the thermal
hDh 2.4254
Nu = = Nu∞ 1 + (15) resistance tests. All heat sinks had a base width wm = 53
k ( L / D ) 0.676
h mm and a length L = 50 mm. The other dimensions
The value of Nu∞ was obtained from Gnielinski equation: (mm) of the short plexiglass (SP), the tall plexiglass
(TP), and the Aluminum (A) heat sinks are shown in
( f a / 2)(φ Re − 1000) Pr Table 2.
Nu∞ = (16)
1 + 12.7( f a / 2) 0.5 (Pr 0.67 − 1) The rectangular duct housing the heat sinks during the
tests had a variable cross section. The duct width W was
where the fully developed friction factor was obtained adjusted to either 109 mm or 53 mm and the height h
from eq. (9) assuming an infinite (L/D). was either 25 mm or 40 mm. Thus, four cross sections
Since h in eq. (15) was based on the fluid mean bulk were obtained to test the three heat sinks as follows. The
temperature, the value of h* was then obtained from short plexiglass (SP) and the Aluminum (A) heat sinks
m& c p h At were tested with no bypass, with top and lateral bypass
h* = [1 − exp( − )] (17) only and with combined bypass. The tall plexiglass (TP)
At m& c p
heat sink was tested for configurations with no bypass
This is a standard conversion to the heat transfer and with the lateral bypass only.
coefficient using the fluid entrance temperature as The experimental tests were performed under steady
reference. state conditions. A differential pressure transducer
measured the heat sink pressure drop with a variable
2.3. Experimental Tests capacitance-sensing element, calibrated for a span of 0 -
The experimental apparatus used for the experimental 5 cm H2O. The temperatures of the heat sink base and
tests was built as indicated in Figure 3. It consisted of a heaters and of the incoming air were obtained by
wood chamber with a (730x610) mm cross section and a calibrated type T thermocouples. The heaters (main and
length of 1100 mm. An internal wall housed a metering guard) under the heat sink base dissipated electric power
nozzle for the airflow forced in suction mode by a fan from two independent dc power supplies. A calibrated
located downstream. The heat sink was located in a digital multimeter measured all the thermocouples and
rectangular duct with variable cross section in the power supply outputs.
The uncertainties of the experimental results were
obtained by the method of sequential perturbations
described by Moffat [13]. The estimated uncertainties for
the results were (+/-) 4 % for the approach air velocity to
the heat sink, 5 % for the convective thermal resistance
inflow
and 3 Pa for the heat sink pressure drop.
The convection from the heat sink the airflow in each was a large decrease in the pressure drops and the airflow
thermal test was evaluated subtracting other losses from in the interfin channels was laminar in all these tests.
the electric power dissipation in the main heater under The largest deviations of the model predictions were
the heat sink base. The other losses included conduction those for heat sink A, with a maximum of 0.6 Pa.
due to contact of the base with the duct wall and the The results of the tests with tip bypass only, made with
thermal insulation under the heat sink, radiation of the the heat sinks A and SP, are shown in Figure 6. The
heat sink surfaces and conduction through the connecting deviations from the model predictions were larger for
and thermocouple wires. heat sink A, but they were (2.3 Pa maximum) within the
experimental uncertainty (3 Pa).
3. Results The combined bypass configuration was also tested
The measured values of the heat sink pressure drop and with the heat sinks A and SP. The results shown in
thermal resistance will be compared with the results Figure 7 indicate the very small pressure drops due to the
predicted by the described compact model. Additional large bypass. The experimental data agreed quite well
comparisons of the model predictions will also be made with the model predictions – the largest deviation was
with data obtained from the literature. 0.7 Pa for heat sink A. The empirical correlation of
In the absence of bypass, the pressure drop increase Jonsson and Moshfegh [14] was also included in Figure 7
with the approach air velocity to the three heat sinks is for heat sink SP, indicating an overprediction of the
presented in Figure 4. The change of slope observed in measured data.
the curves of heat sinks A and SP indicate a flow The thermal resistance was defined as
transition in the interfin channels. The largest deviation T − Ti 1
(5 Pa) from the model predictions occurred for heat sink R= w = (18)
*
qconv h Atη 0
SP at the transition. Note that in this configuration the
heat sinks have an interfin space with the duct walls at The measured values and the model predictions for heat
both sides. sink A are shown in Figure 8. The configuration with tip
The results for the configuration with lateral bypass bypass only presented deviations bigger than the others,
only are presented in Figure 5. Due to flow bypass there but within the (5%) experimental uncertainty, except the
0 1 2 3 4 5
140 14 20 SP 20
Short plexiglass HS (SP)
120 Tall plexiglass HS (TP) 12 A
Pressure Drop [Pa]
15 Model 15
Pressure Drop [Pa]
80 Model Prediction 80
10 10
60 60
40 40 5 5
20 20
0 0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
U [m/s]
U [m/s]
Figure 4 – Pressure drop: confined configuration Figure 6 – Pressure drop: tip bypass only
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 6 6
10 10
SP SP
5 5
8 TP
8 A
Pressure Drop [Pa]
4 [14]-SP 4
Pressure Drop [Pa]
A
6 6
Model
Model 3 3
4 4
2 2
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5
U [m/s] U [m/s]
Figure 5 – Pressure drop: lateral bypass only Figure 7 – Pressure drop: combined bypass
Tomazeti, C.A. and Altemani, C.A.C.
A Compact Model for Heat Sinks with Experimental Verification
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2,5 2,
4. Conclusions
No bypass
2,0 Lateral Only 2,
The compact model used in this work was described
Tip only with all the correlations and the method of solution. The
model predictions for the heat sink pressure drop and
R [K/W]
1,5 Combined 1,
Model thermal resistance compared most favorably with data
obtained from experiments. Comparisons were also
1,0 1,
made with data and correlations from the literature.
0,5 0,
References
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
U [m/s]
[1] Kraus, A.D. and Bar-Cohen, A.: “Thermal Analysis and
Figure 8 – Thermal resistance: HS A Control of Electronic Equipment”, Hemisphere, New
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2,4 2, York (1985).
[2] Goldberg, N.: “Narrow Channel Forced Heat Sink”, IEEE
2,1 Combined 2,
Trans. CHMT, vol. 7, n.1, pp.154-159 (1984).
Lateral only [3] Knight, R.W., Goodling, J.S., and Gross, B.E.: ”Optimal
1,8 1,
Tip only Thermal Design of Air Cooled Forced Convection Finned
R [K/W]
1,5 No Bypass 1,
Heat Sinks – Experimental Verification”, IEEE Trans.
1,2 1,
CHMT, vol.15, n.5, pp.754-760 (1992)
[4] Wirtz, R.A., Chen, W., and Zhou, R.: "Effect of Flow
0,9 0, Bypass on the Performance of Longitudinal Fin Heat
Sinks", ASME Journal of Electronic Packaging, vol.116,
0,6 0,
pp.206-211 (1994).
0,3 0, [5] Butterbaugh, M.A., and Kang, S.S.: "Effect of Airflow
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Bypass on the Performance of Heat Sinks in Electronic
Pressure Drop [Pa] Packaging", Proceedings, ASME InterPACK'93, vol.2,
Figure 9 – R x Pressure Drop correlation pp.843-848 (1995).
6 9 12 [6] Biber, C.R., and Belady, C.L.: "Pressure Drop Prediction
3,0 3,0 for Heat Sinks: What is the Best Method?", Proceedings,
Q Exp (Knight) ASME InterPACK'97, vol.2, pp.1829-1835, (1997).
2,5 2,5
Q Model (Knight) [7] Reis, E. and Altemani, C.A.C.: “Design of Heat Sinks
2,0 Q Present Model 2,0
and Planar Spreaders with Airflow Bypass”, Proceedings,
100 Q [kg/s]
R [K/W]