8th THERMINIC Workshop
1-4 October 2002, Madrid
A Compact Model for Heat Sinks with Experimental Verification
Cristina Autuori Tomazeti and Carlos A. C. Altemani
Department of Energy- Faculty of Mechanical Engineering – State University of Campinas
Campinas – SP - Brazil
Altemani@fem.unicamp.br
Abstract
A compact model was developed for the thermal design
of a parallel plates heat sink mounted in a duct with
bypass regions. It was based on an electrical circuit
analogy and a selection of correlations for pressure losses
and convective heat transfer. The results were obtained
by an iterative solution of a set of nonlinear algebraic
equations. An experimental investigation was performed
to compare results and to improve the model predictions.
Comparisons were also made with data from the
literature.
1. Introduction
Air is the most convenient fluid for electronics cooling,
but its thermal conductivity and specific heat are
relatively small. To overcome this difficulty, many times
the air cooling of electronic components and systems is
associated to extended surface devices [1]. Heat sinks
probably constitute the most commonly used, in many
sizes and shapes, made of distinct materials, and
operating under either forced or natural airflow
conditions. Over the years, the trend of a large increase
in the associated heat fluxes has demanded a proper and
efficient air cooling thermal design. Thus, the thermal
behavior of heat sinks must predicted with great care, in
order to achieve the limits of air-cooling.
Compact models constitute a very convenient tool to
select a heat sink, mainly due to their ability to give very
fast answers. Several heat sink configurations can be
tested in a short time and the best results can be selected
to be further investigated by other methods, such as CFD
and experiments. The development of reliable models
has been the subject of many investigations. For no
clearance around the heat sink, the interfin velocities
may be readily obtained from the duct flow. Goldberg [2]
tested three copper plates heat sinks limited to laminar
airflow. According to his analysis, the design with the
smallest interfin width presented the largest pressure
drop and the smallest thermal resistance. Knight et al.
[3] tested three aluminum fin heat sinks under the same
pressure drop. They showed that the volumetric flow
rates always decreased with the interfin spacing. The
thermal resistance however attained a minimum and then
increased again, thus indicating an optimum spacing.
This behavior was predicted by their analysis, but their
model presented a large overprediction of the flow rate
and a large underprediction of the thermal resistance.
In the presence of bypass regions around the heat sink,
as indicated in Figure 1, just a fraction of the duct flow
rate will pass through the interfin channels. This
fraction must be determined to evaluate the heat sink
thermal performance. The experimental results of Wirtz
et al. [4] showed that heat sink overall heat transfer
decreased with the amount of flow bypass. They
suggested a thermal design procedure based on heat
transfer correlations for developing flow between parallel
plates. Butterbaugh and Kang [5] showed that the
thermal resistance of a heat sink with distinct bypass
regions correlates directly with the pressure drop across
the heat sink, for any amount of bypass. They presented
a network flow model using correlations for the laminar
flow of parallel plates channels. Their predictions were
within 10 per cent of most of their experimental results.
This finding was very important from the point of view
of heat sink design. It indicated the need to complement
the thermal resistance data with information concerning
the pressure drop across the heat sink. This procedure
could help forced convection heat sink manufacturers to
set a standard for heat sinks specification. Biber and
Belady [6] presented pressure drop data for five distinct
tf s
h
hf
wm
w
Figure 1 - Duct Cross Section with Heat Sink
 Tomazeti, C.A. and Altemani, C.A.C.
A Compact Model for Heat Sinks with Experimental Verification

closely ducted heat sinks. The results were obtained from

experiments, CFD modeling and a method based on
correlations. The method based on correlations was
considered an excellent starting point for heat sink
design because it could be very fast to analyse heat sinks
by a parametric procedure. They considered, however,
that there was a need to assess the validity of the flow
correlations used for the heat sinks. Reis and Altemani
[7] included turbulent flow and heat transfer correlations
in a network flow model and compared their prediction
with experimental data from the literature. The
comparisons with the experimental data of [5] showed
larger deviations from the data for larger bypass regions
and smaller approach air speeds.
In order to improve the heat sink pressure drop and
thermal resistance predictions, the compact model of [7]
was reviewed with the support of experimental data.
Since there is no standard procedure to test a heat sink, it
was necessary to select one from the literature. The
pressure drop was measured in [6] employing the same
duct with and without the heat sink and subtracting these
two values. The present experiments were performed
using the same procedure. In addition to comparisons
with the present experimental data, the modified model
was also compared with previous experimental data and
with correlations from the literature.
In the presence of bypass regions, the compact model
generates a system of non-linear algebraic equations.
They state that the pressure drop across the heat sink is
the same for any parallel flow branch. These equations
were assembled for a known total airflow rate in the duct
housing the heat sink. The solution was the pressure
drop across the heat sink and the flow rates in the
interfin channels and the bypass regions. Due to the
non-linearity of the algebraic equations, the new model
made use of an iterative solution procedure based on the
SIMPLE algorithm used for CFD [8].
2. Modeling and Experiments
Initially the flow network model used to obtain the heat
sink pressure drop and the airflow rate in the interfin
channels will be described. This result was used to
obtain the heat sink thermal resistance, as described next.
Finally, the experimental apparatus and the test
procedure will be presented.
2.1. Network flow model
The flow around a heat sink mounted in a duct with tip
(t) and lateral (l) bypass regions was modeled according
to the flow network indicated in Figure 2. The duct total
volumetric airflow rate (Q) is subdivided into three
parallel branches across the heat sink. The model adopts
discrete head losses in each branch, due to contraction,
friction and expansion. Similarly to [5], pressure
Figure 2 – Flow network model.
increases were associated to the form drag of the flow
around the heat sink, considered like a permeable bluff
body. Ahead of the sink, there is a pressure increase
(∆Phs) due to stagnation of the approach flow and behind
the heat sink there is a flow separation and a subsequent
pressure increase (∆Phb) to the downstream airflow.
Instead of treating these terms as pressure increases
along the interfin flow path, they were subtracted from
the entire flow network and were treated as pressure
drops in both the tip and lateral flow channels. The
advantage is that the calculated pressure drop is directly
that across the heat sink. They were expressed by
∆Phs = 0.8 ρ (U 2 − U hs
2
)/2 (1)
∆Phb = Cρ (U 2 − U hb
2
)/2 (2)
The constant C in equation (2) was 0.1 for either tip or
lateral bypass only and 0.2 for combined bypass [5]. The
mean airflow velocity Uhs in the frontal area just ahead of
the heat sink differed from Uhb just behind the heat sink
due to flow leakage to the tip clearance. These velocities
were obtained by continuity at the upstream and
downstream ends of the heat sink, expressed by
Qhs = Qhi and Qhb = Qhe (3)
Two conditions were imposed on the flow network to
generate the desired solution. First, the mass
conservation of nodes 1 to 3:
Qn,in − Qn, out = 0 (4)
Second, the same pressure drop across the heat sink by
any parallel branch:
∆Ph = ∆Pt = ∆Pl = P14 (5)
The head losses in both the interfin and the bypass
channels were associated to those in rectangular ducts
with aspect ratio α ≤ 1, through the hydraulic diameter
analogy. The friction pressure losses were evaluated with
the apparent Fanning friction factor fa, so that the
 Tomazeti, C.A. and Altemani, C.A.C.
A Compact Model for Heat Sinks with Experimental Verification

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.

TABLE 2- Heat sinks dimensions (Figure 1)

PS PH A
outflow S 1.9 2.4 2.9
Rectangular duct nf 13 11 13
with heat sink nozzle tf 2.0 2.2 1.0
Figure 3 – Experimental apparatus hf 25.0 40.0 25.0
 Tomazeti, C.A. and Altemani, C.A.C.
A Compact Model for Heat Sinks with Experimental Verification

The convection from the heat sink the airflow in each
thermal test was evaluated subtracting other losses from
the electric power dissipation in the main heater under
the heat sink base. The other losses included conduction
due to contact of the base with the duct wall and the
thermal insulation under the heat sink, radiation of the
heat sink surfaces and conduction through the connecting
and thermocouple wires.
3. Results
The measured values of the heat sink pressure drop and
thermal resistance will be compared with the results
predicted by the described compact model. Additional
comparisons of the model predictions will also be made
with data obtained from the literature.
In the absence of bypass, the pressure drop increase
with the approach air velocity to the three heat sinks is
presented in Figure 4. The change of slope observed in
the curves of heat sinks A and SP indicate a flow
transition in the interfin channels. The largest deviation
(5 Pa) from the model predictions occurred for heat sink
SP at the transition. Note that in this configuration the
heat sinks have an interfin space with the duct walls at
both sides.
The results for the configuration with lateral bypass
only are presented in Figure 5. Due to flow bypass there
was a large decrease in the pressure drops and the airflow
in the interfin channels was laminar in all these tests.
The largest deviations of the model predictions were
those for heat sink A, with a maximum of 0.6 Pa.
The results of the tests with tip bypass only, made with
the heat sinks A and SP, are shown in Figure 6. The
deviations from the model predictions were larger for
heat sink A, but they were (2.3 Pa maximum) within the
experimental uncertainty (3 Pa).
The combined bypass configuration was also tested
with the heat sinks A and SP. The results shown in
Figure 7 indicate the very small pressure drops due to the
large bypass. The experimental data agreed quite well
with the model predictions – the largest deviation was
0.7 Pa for heat sink A. The empirical correlation of
Jonsson and Moshfegh [14] was also included in Figure 7
for heat sink SP, indicating an overprediction of the
measured data.
The thermal resistance was defined as
T − Ti 1
R= w = (18)
*
qconv h Atη 0
The measured values and the model predictions for heat
sink A are shown in Figure 8. The configuration with tip
bypass only presented deviations bigger than the others,
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]

100 Aluminum HS (A) 10

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]

1,5 1,5 ASME InterPACK’99, vol.1, pp.477-484 (1999).

1,0 1,0 [8] Patankar, S.V.: “Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid
Flow”, Taylor&Fracis, (1980).
0,5 0,5 [9] Phillips, R.J.: “Microchannel Heat Sinks”, in Advances in
0,0 R Exp (Knight) 0,0 Thermal Modeling Electronic Components and Systems,
R Model (Knight) vol. 2, Ch. 3, Eds. Bar-Cohen, A., and Kraus, A.D., IEEE,
-0,5 -0,5
R Present Model (1990).
-1,0 -1,0 [10] Shah, R.K., and Bhatti, M.S.: "Laminar Convective Heat
6 9 12
Number of interfin channels Transfer in Ducts", in Handbook of Single Phase
Convective Heat Transfer, John Wiley, New York,
Figure 10 – Comparison with the data of [3]. (1987).
[11] Sparrow, E.M.: “Analysis of Laminar Forced Convection
Heat Transfer in Entrance Region of Flat Rectangular
point with the lowest approach velocity, with a deviation Ducts”, NACA TN 3331, (1955).
of 8,5 %. These results are redrawn in terms of the [12] Bhatti, M.S. and Shah, R.K.: "Turbulent and Transition
pressure drop in Figure 9. They indicate, as was done in Flow Convective Heat Transfer in Ducts", in Handbook
[5], the same thermal resistance – pressure drop of Single Phase Convective Heat Transfer, John Wiley,
correlation for any amount of bypass. New York, (1987).
[13] Moffat, R.J.: “Using Uncertainty Analysis in the Planning
The experimental data and the simulations presented in
of an Experiment”, J. Fluids Engineering, vol.107,
[3] were compared with the present model predictions, as pp.173-178, (1985).
indicated in Figure 10. With the present model, the [14] Jonsson, H., and Moshfegh, B.: “Modeling of the
airflow rate and thus the thermal resistance are in better Thermal and Hydraulic Performance of Plate Fin, Strip
agreement with data than the original predictions. Fin, and Pin Fin Heat Sinks – Influence of Flow Bypass”,
Proceedings, IEEE ITherm 2000, vol.I, pp.185-192.