This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

**International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
**

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

**Optimum design of a radial heat sink under natural convection
**

Seung-Hwan Yu, Kwan-Soo Lee ⇑, Se-Jin Yook

School of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-dong, Sungdong-gu, Seoul 133-791, South Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

We investigated natural convection heat transfer around a radial heat sink adapted for dissipating heat on a circular LED (light emitting diode) light and optimized heat sink. The numerical results were validated with experimental results and it showed a good agreement. To select the optimum reference model, three types of heat sinks (L, LM and LMS model) were compared. Parametric studies were performed to compare the effects of the number of ﬁns, long ﬁn length, middle ﬁn length and heat ﬂux on the thermal resistance and average heat transfer coefﬁcient. Finally, multi-objective optimizations considering thermal performance and mass simultaneously were performed and Pareto front were conducted with various weighting factors. It was found that it was impossible to optimize both thermal performance and heat sink mass at the same time, and there existed an upper limit to the ratio of weighting factors (x1/x2). Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 3 September 2010 Received in revised form 7 January 2011 Accepted 7 January 2011 Available online xxxx Keywords: Natural convection Radial heat sink Optimization Pareto front

1. Introduction The light-emitting diode (LED) market has grown recently, thanks to enhancements in LED luminous efﬁciency. Nevertheless, about 70% of the total energy consumed by an LED light is emitted as heat, creating a thermal problem. Without properly dissipating this heat, the performance and life of an LED light is impaired. Thus, to commercialize LED lights, the problem of heat dissipation must be solved ﬁrst. Natural convection heat sinks are appropriate for LED lights, in view of their overall advantages. There have been numerous experimental [1–5] and numerical [6,7] studies of natural convection heat transfer in rectangular-ﬁn or pin-ﬁn heat sinks. Harahap and Setio [1] performed experiments to obtain the average heat transfer coefﬁcients for ﬁve different rectangular heat sinks, and proposed a correlation to predict the average heat transfer coefﬁcient. Huang et al. [2] conducted an experimental study of seven types of pin-ﬁn heat sinks (both vertically and horizontally oriented), and the optimum shape of a pinﬁn heat sink was suggested for each orientation. Bar-Cohen et al. [6] optimized a rectangular heat sink by employing existing correlations; they considered the mass of the heat sink, as well as the thermal performance. Dialameh et al. [7] carried out a numerical study to predict natural convection from arrays of aluminum horizontal rectangular thick ﬁns with short lengths. They compared the effects of various ﬁn geometries and temperature differences on the convection heat transfer of heat sinks, and proposed a non-dimensional correlation. However, most of these studies were

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2220 0426; fax: +82 2 2295 9021.

E-mail address: ksleehy@hanyang.ac.kr (K.-S. Lee). 0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2011.02.012

concerned with heat sinks with rectangular bases, which might be not straightforward for cooling circular LED lights. In this study, natural convection heat transfer around a radial heat sink is investigated, experimentally and numerically. The numerical model is validated by the experimental results. To determine the optimum reference model, we numerically compare the L model (long ﬁn), the LM model (long and middle ﬁns) and the LMS model (long, middle and short ﬁns). Parametric studies are performed to compare the effects of the number of ﬁns, long ﬁn length, ratio of middle to long ﬁn length, and heat ﬂux on the thermal resistance and average heat transfer coefﬁcient. Finally, optimal designs of radial heat sinks with various heat ﬂuxes are suggested. 2. Mathematical modeling Fig. 1 illustrates a radial heat sink, composed of a circular base and rectangular ﬁns. The ﬁns are assumed to be radially arranged at regular intervals. The heat sink base is horizontal, while the ﬁns are vertical. The material of the heat sink is aluminum. Table 1 lists the properties of aluminum and air. 2.1. Governing equations The following assumptions are imposed for the numerical analysis. (1) The ﬂow is steady, laminar, and three-dimensional. (2) Except for density, ﬂuid properties are independent of temperature.

Please cite this article in press as: S.-H. Yu et al., Optimum design of a radial heat sink under natural convection, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2011.02.012

024 Â 102 8.643 Â 10 –5 q (kg/m3) Patm ðR=M w ÞT 2.. in accordance with the repetitive characteristics of the heat sink geometry (Fig. 1). Air side Continuity equation: Table 1 Properties of air and heat sink.966 kg/kmol. 2. The governing equations are as follows. Int. Heat Mass Transfer (2011). (4) Radiation heat transfer is neglected. Boundary conditions Periodic boundary conditions were used.2. Yu et al. doi:10.91 Â 102 @ðquÞ @ðqv Þ @ðqwÞ þ þ ¼0 @x @y @z ð1Þ Momentum equations: ! @ðqu2 Þ @ðquv Þ @ðquwÞ @P @2u @2u @2u þ þ ¼À þl þ 2þ 2 @x @y @z @x @x2 @y @z @ðqv uÞ @ðqv 2 Þ @ðqv wÞ @P @2v @2v @2v þ þ ¼À þl þ þ @x @y @z @y @x2 @y2 @z2 þ gðq À q1 Þ ! @ðqwuÞ @ðqwv Þ @ðqw2 Þ @P @2w @2w @2w þ þ ¼À þl þ 2 þ 2 @x @y @z @z @x2 @y @z ! ð2Þ ð3Þ ð4Þ where q1 is the air density corresponding to the ambient temperature. Fin-array conﬁguration Please cite this article in press as: S.834 Â 10 – –5 k (W/m oC) 2.-H.-H.719 Â 103 2.1016/j. Considering the number of grids and the computational time involved. Material Air Heat sink CP (J/kgoC)Â 1. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxx–xxx Nomenclature A b Cp F H h k L M N P _ q R r T t u v surface area for heat transfer [m2] spacing between ﬁns [m] speciﬁc heat [J/(kg K)] view factor ﬁn height [m] heat transfer coefﬁcient[W/(m2 K)] thermal conductivity [W/(m K)] ﬁn length [m] mass of heat sink [kg] number of ﬁns pressure [Pa] heat ﬂux [W/m2] universal gas constant[J/mol K] radius [m] temperature [K] thickness of ﬁn [m] x-component of velocity [m/s] y-component of velocity [m/s] w z-component of velocity [m/s] Greek symbols dynamic viscosity [N/m2 s] density [kg/m3] h angle as in Fig. 2 [°] e emissivity x weighting factor l q Subscripts avg average f ﬂuid (air) i inner L long ﬁn M middle ﬁn o outer ref reference model 1 ambient (3) The density of air is calculated from the ideal gas law.005 Â 10 3 l (N/m2s) 1. Fig. 1.012 . Energy equation: @ðquTÞ @ðqv TÞ @ðqwTÞ k þ þ ¼ @x @y @z CP Solid side Energy equation: @2T @2T @2T þ þ @x2 @y2 @z2 ! ð5Þ @2T @2T @2T þ þ ¼0 @x2 @y2 @z2 The density of air is obtained from ð6Þ q¼ P atm ðR=M w ÞT ð7Þ where Mw (the molecular weight of air) is 28. J.2 S.ijheatmasstransfer.02. Optimum design of a radial heat sink under natural convection. Yu et al.2011.

and the ambient temperature is measured with two thermocouples.2011.012 . The heat sink is made of aluminum (Al2014).055 m.002 m. by comparing the differences between ambient and heat sink temperatures. and a grid system with 65. A is the surface area for heat transfer. a second-order upwind scheme was applied to the convective terms of the governing equations. Thermal grease is used to minimize the thermal contact resistance between the ﬁlm heater and the heat sink. J. however. respectively. Computational domain and dimensions Here. H = 0.055 m. The convergence criterion for all dependent variables was a relative error of 10À5. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 3 sink temperature by less than 0. heat sink temperatures are measured with eight thermocouples (located at four points of the central region and four points of the outer region of the upper heat sink base).-H.6ro. Yu et al.5ro. As illustrated in Fig. As Fig. with no additional surface treatment. @T s j ¼0 @n sectional wall (d) The remaining outer faces: pressure condition (pressure inlet / outlet condition) (e) Interface between the air and the solid: T f. Int. Heat Mass Transfer (2011).075 m.3ro to 1. ro = 0. To optimize the computational domain size. and the radius of the domain was varied from 1. and r is the Stefan-Boltzmann only a single set of ﬁns was analyzed. ro = 0. natural convection and radiation heat transfer occurs simultaneously. The effect of radiation heat transfer is obtained from _ Q radiation ¼ FAeðT 4 À T 4 Þ avg 1 ð8Þ Fig. 3(b). q ¼ Àks @T s jheat sink base @n (b) Periodic interface (ﬂuid): periodic condition [8]. The geometric parameters of the experimental L-type model are NL = 20. The following boundary conditions are imposed: _ (a) Heat sink base: constant heat ﬂux. the grid sensitivity was tested by changing the number of grid points from approximately 20. 3.5%. LL = 0. ui ð~i Þ ¼ r ui ð~ þ ~ r LÞ where ~ is the position vector and ~ is the periodic length r L vector (c) Periodic interface (solid): symmetric condition.wall kf @T f jwall ¼ ks @T s jwall @n @n 2. In the experiments. 2 shows computational domain and dimensions. and a personal computer.S. The computation time for single evaluation was about 3 h using a 2.002 m. changed the average heat Fig. Experiments and validation The numerical model is veriﬁed with experimental data. F is the view factor. and t = 0.1016/j. the ﬁlm heater section is surrounded by an insulator. 3(a) shows.000. The ﬁlm heater is attached to the bottom surface of the heat sink. NI9211). Fig. the height of the domain was varied from 2H to 10H. ri = 0. Optimum design of a radial heat sink under natural convection. a power supply. 25 lm). an insulator.075 m.4 GHz Intel i760 processor. a data acquisition device (NI cDAQ-9172. the experimental setup consisted of a ﬁlm heater (Kapton-coated stainless steel. radiation heat transfer is neglected. 2. Increasing the height and radius beyond 5H and 1.0213 m. Schematics of the experimental system Please cite this article in press as: S. a heat sink. Additionally. Yu et al. 3.016 grid points was chosen for the L-type reference model with NL = 20. For the numerical simulation. Numerical procedure The SIMPLE algorithm was used to couple the velocity and pressure. To reduce heat loss.ijheatmasstransfer. doi:10. For improved accuracy.-H.wall ¼ T s.3. and t = 0. type-T thermocouples (gauge 36). e is the emissivity of the heat sink. a wattmeter..02.01 m.000–300. LL = 0.

10e+01 61.69e+01 36.55e+01 4.59e+01 54.17e+01 3. 4. which was originally applied to rectangular heat sinks.50 6. we compare the L model (long ﬁn).35e+01 33.90 3.76e+01 57. LM and LMS models The cooling air enters from the outside region of the heat sink.012 . the temperature of the cooling air in the outer region of the heat sink is lower than in the inner region of the heat sink. middle and short ﬁns). Parametric studies and design optimization are carried out for the model exhibiting the best performance. difference between the ﬁns and the air decreases.24e+01 5.52e+01 3. J.70 4.1016/j.1.45e+01 (oC) 64.93e+01 5.17e+01 3. Int..73e+01 47.21e+01 Tavg-T∞ .15 5.17e+01 Z Y 800 3.41e+01 5. the thermal boundary layer develops and the ﬁn spacing becomes narrower. Comparison between experimental and computational results constant. Temperature T 1 ¼ 30 C) contours at y = 0. The heat loss from the insulation is about 1% of the total heat transfer.00e+01 30.00e+01 30.96 oC) 6.05 5. and is estimated to be about 5% of the total heat transfer rate. and then rises upward from the inside region of the heat sink [10]. as the cooling air proceeds toward the inner region.00 Z Y X (c) LMS type (Tavg=63. to compare the L. Fig.25 4.55e+01 4.90 3. The radiation heat transfer rate is calculated using Eq. much of the cooling air passing between the ﬁns is held at room temperature in the outer region of the heat sink. The uncertainty of the average heat sink temperature is less than 0.10e+01 61.69e+01 36. the view factor is calculated by the method of Ellison [9].45e+01 (oC) 64.35e+01 33.1.45 3. the LM and the LMS models are constructed Please cite this article in press as: S. 5.38e+01 43. degrading the heat transfer rate. 5 shows temperature contours on horizontal planes located at the middle of the ﬁn height. LM and LMS models.31. Thus.15 5.2011.93e+01 5.52e+01 3.35e+01 33.07e+01 50. Heat Mass Transfer (2011). bavg = {(2pro/n À t) + (2p(ro À LL)/n À t)}/2.25 4. due to the relatively thin thermal boundary layer. Finally. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 40 Computational results Experimental results 6. 4.15 5.00e+01 30. the agreement between the experimental and numerical data is good.69e+01 36.38e+01 43.04e+01 3.86e+01 3.28e+01 6.80 4.60 30 5.50 6. As Fig.-H. Yu et al.45 3.07e+01 50.60 5. It is difﬁcult to analytically determine the view factor of a radial heat sink.73e+01 47.4 S.075 m.35 4.76e+01 57.-H. Fig. is warmed up between the ﬁns.04e+01 3.ijheatmasstransfer. Comparison of the L.28e+01 6.38e+01 43.02.55e+01 4.76e+01 57. it is conﬁrmed that the numerical model described in Section 2 can accurately simulate a natural convection ﬂow around a radial heat sink.W/m (a) L type (Tavg=61.41e+01 5.05 5.21e+01 40. the fully developed thermal region appears closer to the outer region of the heat sink. 4.70 4.90e+01 4. and is appropriately low in the experiments.80 4. the temperature 6.01 m (ro = 0.70 4. C 8 o 20 40. Because the effect of radiation heat transfer is neglected in the simulation. and thus the local heat transfer coefﬁcient is relatively low.45 3. 4 shows the temperature difference between the experimental and numerical results in terms of the heat ﬂux applied to the heat sink base. 5(a) indicates.90e+01 4. due to the radial arrangement of the ﬁns. in the inner region of the heat sink.10e+01 61.73e+01 47.24e+01 5.80 4. doi:10. The view factor of this model is found to be F = 0. for the L model. The distance between the ﬁns of a radial heat sink decreases from the outer region to the inner region.96 oC) Fig.21e+01 40.05 5. _ q ¼ 700 W=m2 .35 4.86 oC) Fig.28e+01 6. However. using the average ﬁn spacing: that is. Optimum design of a radial heat sink under natural convection.60 5. Thus.52e+01 3.00 Z Y X (b) LM type (Tavg=57.90e+01 4. The emissivity is measured as e = 0.86e+01 10 0 200 400 600 2 3. the effect of radiation is relatively small.25 4.45e+01 (oC) 64. (8).93e+01 5.50 6.04e+01 3. To complement these shortcomings of the L model. the LM model (long and middle ﬁns) and the LMS model (long.24e+01 5.35 4. Yu et al.86e+01 3. When the number of ﬁns increases to enlarge the heat transfer area.41e+01 5.59e+01 54.07e+01 50.2 °C.90 3. Thus. due to the low emissivity of the heat sink. Results and discussion To choose the optimum reference model. Thus.59e+01 54. using a thermal imager (IRBIS 3021-ST).00 X q .

As the number of ﬁns increases.05 0.50 o havg 5 2 o 2 h avg.045 2. the thermal resistance begins to increase. the thermal boundary layers between neighboring ﬁns overlap and become fully developed as the air proceeds through the narrowing ﬁn spaces toward the inner region.-H.3 °C/W by increasing the number of ﬁns. This indicates that the proper middle ﬁn length must be determined to optimize a heat sink. As a result.01 m. The heat transfer rate is diminished in the inner region of the heat sink. When the length of the middle ﬁn is relatively small. 6 shows the effect of the number of long ﬁns on the thermal resistance and average heat transfer rate.03 0. W/m K 2. which increased the ﬂow rate of the cooler air entering from the outside region of the heat sink. 5((b) and (c)). As the length of the long ﬁns increases. when the length of the long ﬁns exceeds 0. 9 displays the effect of the heat ﬂux applied to the heat sink base. as Fig. and heat ﬂux on the thermal resistance and average heat transfer rate are analyzed. the thermal resistance shows a tendency to decrease. The purpose of the smaller ﬁns is to intensify the heat transfer rate. Fig. ri = 0. doi:10. because the inlet area for the cooling air decreases and the ﬂow rate of the cooling air is also reduced.00 15 20 25 4 NL Fig. W/m K RTH. and the air is heated more quickly because of the reduced space between the ﬁns. when the length of the middle ﬁn exceeds 0.25 4 2. there is a decrease in the ﬂow rate of the cooler air passing between the ﬁns. the thermal resistance decreases and the heat transfer coefﬁcient increases. Because the ﬂow rate of the cooling air varies according to the applied heat ﬂux. it is ineffective to extend the long ﬁn length beyond 0. and at the same time thermal boundary layers grow near the middle ﬁns. ﬁrst by developing new thermal boundary layers in the region where the cooling air remains at room temperature in the L model. middle ﬁn length (LM). As a result. 5(b) suggests. and the inlet area for the cooling air depends only on the number of ﬁns. 4. Fig. and the growth of these thermal boundary layers is similar to that obtained by increasing the number of ﬁns. As the middle ﬁn length increases.1016/j.05 m in this test case. C/W havg 5 h avg. H = 0. Yu et al. m Fig. The effect of middle ﬁns length Please cite this article in press as: S.075 m.002 m.2. 5(c)).35 0. Int.40 6 RTH 2. Parametric study The parameters of the reference model are NL = NM = 20. q ¼ 700W=m2 .04 0. As the heat ﬂux increases. The effects of the number of ﬁns (N = NL = NM). the ﬂow rate of the cooling air for a ﬁxed heat ﬂux and the number of ﬁns does not change signiﬁcantly as the long ﬁn length varies. However. long ﬁn length (LL). 6. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 5 by inserting smaller ﬁns between the long ﬁns. it is not efﬁcient to reduce the thermal resistance below 2. Here. Yu et al.015 m.05 m.045 0. the heat transfer area increases. in view of the thermal performance and the mass of the heat sink. The effect of long ﬁn length RTH ¼ 1 havg A ð9Þ Fig. Optimum design of a radial heat sink under natural convection. LL = 0. second. m Fig. Heat Mass Transfer (2011)..055 5 LL. the optimum middle and long 2. but the average heat transfer coefﬁcient decreases.02.012 h avg. _ t = 0.ijheatmasstransfer.005 0. Fig.75 6 2. 7.04 0. these thermal boundary layers do not affect the thermal boundary layers around the long ﬁns. 8. However. 7 displays the effect of long ﬁn length for ﬁxed middle ﬁn length. the thermal boundary layers induced by the middle ﬁn affect the thermal boundary layers around the long ﬁns. by enlarging the heat transfer area. as illustrated in Fig.2011.S. By comparing the thermal performance of the three models. T1 = 30 °C. C/W 2. As a result.06 0. as the long ﬁn length increases.45 RTH. and. Thus.W/m K o 2 . the heat transfer area also increases.3 RTH 0. As a result. this enhanced effect of natural convection increases the average heat transfer coefﬁcient.5 6 RTH.0213 m. and the heat transfer rate decreases signiﬁcantly. The LMS model’s gap is too narrow between the ﬁns (Fig.055 m. The increase in average heat sink temperature due to increasing heat ﬂux resulted in a faster rising air velocity.035 0. Likewise. thermal resistance is deﬁned as follows: 7 2. 5(b) indicates. When the number of ﬁns is decreased to obtain a larger gap between the ﬁns.-H. because of the smaller heat transfer area. 8 shows the effect of middle ﬁn length for ﬁxed long ﬁn length. the heat transfer performance is degraded. For this model. and then increases as the middle ﬁn length increases. J. Because the ﬁn height is held constant.025 0. The effect of number of long ﬁns LM. the thermal resistance initially decreases. the LM model is found to provide the best heat transfer performance.4 RTH 2. as Fig. C/W havg 2. ro = 0. LM = 0. the thermal boundary layer develops too early (by overheating the cooling air).01 0.035 m.

946 2.157 2.307 0.5 0.055 0. 0:035 6 X 2 6 0:055.035 0. using EA (evolutionary algorithm) [12].183 0.055 0. the coefﬁcient of determination (R2) was evaluated and determined as 0.226 1 1.539 0. the response surface was generated. Int.160 0.195 0. W/m K o 2 Population size: 50 Maximum number of generations: 1000 Violated constraint limit: 0.3 0. Yu et al.5 Response M (kg) 0. J. optimization results do not vary because the change in the value of Rth/Rth.0 1100 W/m 2 0.999 1.089.5 5 RTH 2. 9. X 2 . 0.ref 1.778 0.03503 0.205 0. Table 2 lists sample _ results for the case when ro = 0.990 0.15 Pareto optima are obtained with various weighting factors as shown in Table 3.012 3. long ﬁn length and middle ﬁn length are 20.179 0.5 0. natural convection heat transfer does not alter much as Table 3 2 _ Selected results of Pareto optima (ro = 0.33 4 9 1 NL 20 20 18 21 19 17 16 16 16 16 LL (m) 0. 700. X 3 Þ MðX 1 . 700. In general. the 11th model was chosen as the reference model.7 0.855 2.011 0.045 0.3 0.03503 0.1 0 x1/x2 0.940 2.080 1.216 0. Optimized values of X1.03503 0.304 0. 1100 W/m2) and the radius of the heat sink (0. The mass of the heat sink is calculated as 0.4 0.260 0.045 X3 0.994 1.952 3.3 0.853 2.5 0. Optimum design of a radial heat sink under natural convection.251 RTH (oC/W) 3.075 m. X 3 Þ x1 x2 0.303 0. long ﬁn length (X2 = LL).282 0. C/W o 2.95.305 0.0 300 500 700 900 2 1100 4 q. 4.8 0.3 0.03503 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.3.075 m.293 0.5 2.-H.987 1.5 0.035 0. The objective function and constraints were deﬁned as follows: Find X1.7 0.03503 LM/LL 0.961 0. doi:10.39 3.11 0.243 1. and ratio of middle ﬁn length to long ﬁn length (X3 = LM/LL).965 3.1 0.43 0.692 0.693 0. A second-order polynomial was used to estimate the full quadratic model for response surface of Rth.303 0.7 0.075 m and q ¼ 300W=m2 . Yu et al. kg _ Fig. When the ratio of x1 to x2 is greater than 1.980 1.6 0. Heat Mass Transfer (2011).916 3.03503 0. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 3.3 0. Automation and Optimization) [11].25 M.03503 0.274 1.03504 0. 0. X 2 . 10.045 0.272 0. 0:3 6 X 3 6 0:7 where x1 and x2 are weighting factors.39 ð10Þ subject to 16 6 X 1 ðideal numberÞ 6 24.286 3. weighting factors are given to all objective functions according to their priorities.000 2.010 1 0.5 0. X2.25 0.20 0.207 3.286 0. The effect of heat ﬂux ﬁn lengths and number of ﬁns could change.6 0.206 0.984 0.045 0.232 0. 1100 W/m2) Please cite this article in press as: S.02.232 0.67 1 1.055 0.6 S. If there are more than two objective functions. X3 h avg. X 3 Þ M ref ðX 1 . 0.055 0. optimum number of long ﬁns.952 1. X 3 Þ þ x2 RTH.165 1.ref ðX 1 .130 0.221 0.219 0. q ¼ 300W=m2 ) Test number Parameters X1 X2 0.303 0. the optimization of a heat sink must take heat ﬂux into account.ref is less than the change in the value of M/Mref in Table 2.7 0. PIAnO (Process Integration.045.8 0.033 1. EA in this paper allows both discrete (binary coding) and continuous parameters (ﬂoating-point representation)..0 Rth.5 700 W/m 2 2.03504 0.015 m considering thermal performance and mass. Therefore. Optimization To optimize a radial heat sink.904 M/Mref 0. Pareto fronts of ro = 0.075 m (q = 300.8.7 0.035 0.091 RTH/RTH. Based on the experimental points.39 3.045 0.035 0.909 3. using CCD (Central Composite Design) to create a response surface.121 3. q ¼ 300W=m Þ to minimize x1 RTH ðX 1 . Based on the results of parametric studies.354 0. W/m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (Ref) 12 13 14 15 16 24 16 24 16 24 16 24 16 24 20 20 20 20 20 RTH. as listed in Table 2.003 Number of consecutive generations without improvement: 50 Mutation probability: 0.9 1.179 0. As a result.921 2.-H. The parameters of the evolutionary algorithm are set in this study as follows: 3. Namely.035 0. X 2 .179 Rth (oC/W) 2.0 6 Table 2 _ Design of experiments (ro = 0.443 2. To validate the accuracy of the response surface. (12).3 0.39 3. indicating a good agreement. C/W Fig. X2 and X3 were then obtained from the weighted sum of response surface and Eq.7 0.1016/j.5 0.891 1.03503 0.5 300 W/m 2 3.939 1.012 .2 0.179 0.9 0.075. The optimization was carried out with respect to heat ﬂux (300. X 2 .992 0. the design parameters are selected as the number of ﬁns (X1 = NL = NM).067 3.01 Selection probability: 0.978 havg 2.227 0.179 0.969 2.184 0.102 m) by using a commercial PIDO (Process Integration and Design Optimization) tool.969 2. 0.063 1 0.ijheatmasstransfer.230 0.698 0.303 M (kg) 0.2 0.055 0.0 MðkgÞ ¼ 2800 Â ½ðr2 À r2 Þp Â t þ N Â ðLL þ LM Þ Â H Â t o i ð11Þ Fifteen experimental cases are selected for optimization.002 2.218 0.268 0.2011.

Appl. Foli. Iyengar. Int. Heat Mass Transfer 49 (2006) 2567–2577. Trans. Bejan. T. M. Heat Mass Transfer (2011). Bar-Cohen. Liu. [2] R. Okabe.S. J.-H. M. B. Natural convection around a radial heat sink. Harahap.-H. S. 28 (2008) 2371–2379.V. It was found that optimum values of the geometric parameters existed for maximizing heat transfer performance.F. Finally. Ledezma. D. Int. Sendhoff. G. References [1] F. As the optimal heat sink mass increases.1016/j. Janiga. Dialameh. Japan.J. Yaghoubi. Abouali. C. Florida. Optimization of micro heat exchanger: CFD. 2003. Heat Transfer. Yu. Integrated Support System for Decision-Making in Design Optimization. J.. J. [10] S. Pareto front was investigated with respect to heat ﬂux.. L. M. [14] R. when weighting factors are changed with respect to heat ﬂux. Optimum arrangement of rectangular ﬁns on horizontal surfaces for free-convection heat transfer. W. and the agreement was good. J. J. it is recommended not to set the ratio of x1 to x2 too high (x1/x2 < 1. middle ﬁn length and long ﬁn length increased. Hilbert. By varying weighting factors. 20100008537). Orientation effect of natural convective performance of square pin ﬁn heat sinks..M.8 in this case) when optimizing a radial heat sink under natural convection.-T. Therm. Design of optimum plate-ﬁn natural convective heat sinks.H. pp. Y. Tokyo. Heat sinks with sloped plate ﬁns in natural and forced convection. Packaging Trans. LM and LMS models) were compared and the LM model exhibited superior thermal performance. 10 shows Pareto fronts. Malabar. Jin. A.S. and there existed upper limit to the ratio of weighting factors (x1/x2). i.2011. [13] K. [5] G. Int. Yook. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 7 the geometry of heat sink varies. Optimum design of a radial heat sink under natural convection. PhD Thesis. Conclusions Numerical analyses were conducted to optimize a radial heat sink adapted to a circular LED light. Experiments were performed to validate the numerical model. J. Version 3. It was found that it was impossible to optimize both thermal performance and heat sink mass at the same time. Sparrow. [7] L. three types of heat sink (L. Int.. 2010. Thévenin.e. Science and Technology (No. the corresponding thermal resistance decreases. the heat sink geometry (number of long ﬁns. Jeong.-J. Robert E. Yu et al. Olhofer. Natural convection heat transfer from horizontal rectangular ﬁn arrays. Fully developed ﬂow and heat transfer in ducts having streamwise-periodic variations of cross-sectional area. Sheu. Acknowledgment This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education. Wang. Ellison.-C. Eng. J. [6] A. [3] F. Huang. [4] C.N. doi:10. the thermal resistance and average heat transfer coefﬁcient decreased. Electron. Harahap. O.H. i. 121–127. Int. Fig. Heat Transfer 89 (1967) 32–38. A. vertically-ﬁnned arrays. Int. D. [9] N. Therefore. [12] M.02. H. the trade-off curve between two objective functions [13. [11] PIAno (Process Integration. Yu et al. minimizing thermal resistance.012 . University of Tokyo. K. Correlation for heat dissipation and natural convection heat-transfer from horizontally based. when x1/x2 is large enough. Please cite this article in press as: S. Pareto front showed trade-off between minimal thermal resistance and minimal mass of heat sink. 1989. J. Parametric studies were performed to compare the effects of three geometric parameters (number of long ﬁns.D. Setio. Heat Mass Transfer 49 (2006) 1090–1099. Smith. Multi-objective shape optimization of a heat exchanger using parallel genetic algorithms.. Jones. Appl. ASME 125 (2003) 208–216.21. long ﬁn length and middle ﬁn length) and an operating parameter (heat ﬂux) on the thermal resistance and average heat transfer coefﬁcient for the heat sink array. Krieger Publishing Co. Kraus. E. Lee. Framax INC. ASME 92 (1970) 6–10. C. Heat Transfer 99 (1977) 180–186. As the number of long ﬁns. Energy 69 (2001) 273–278. Heat Mass Transfer 39 (1996) 1773–1783. Baron. McManus. [8] S. Patankar. Thermal computations for electronic equipment. long ﬁn length and ﬁn length ratio) was optimized using a CCD and an EA. Heat Mass Transfer 51 (2008) 2368–2376.ijheatmasstransfer. To determine the optimum model.D.J. This result implies that it is impossible to optimize both thermal performance and heat sink mass simultaneously. R. 5. J. J. Natural convection from an array of horizontal rectangular thick ﬁns with short length.e.14]. Automation and Optimization) User’s manual. analytical approach and multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Heat Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 2935–2938.

- zeuthen
- Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro
- A Practical Method for Measurement of High-power LEDs
- LED Luminaires - Economical Lifetime and Service Concepts, June 2011
- Lighting,Lecture.doc.
- 65E8Dd01
- muayene
- Sharp LED Whitepaper
- Thorn Optical Design and Standards
- Optimum Design of a Radial Heat Sink Under Natural Convection
- LED_Luminaire_Design_Guide
- CORM_2009_-_IESNA_Standards_on_LED_and_SSL_LM79LM80_and_Future_Standards_CORM_2009_Y_Ohno

- Simulation of Fin Geometries for Heat Sink in Forcedby International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- Final Thesisby jvarthani
- Numerical Investigation on Heat Sink by Computational Fluid Dynamics (Cfd)by International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- Optiz of Heat Sinkby knaidu_1

- heat sink.pdf
- Heat Sink Optimizarion With Application to Microchannels
- Ict94rjb - Thermoelectric Heat Sink
- HEAT SINK
- Simulation of Fin Geometries for Heat Sink in Forced
- Final Thesis
- Numerical Investigation on Heat Sink by Computational Fluid Dynamics (Cfd)
- Optiz of Heat Sink
- Design Project Thermal Analysis of Heat Sink
- PA Design Thesis_very Good
- Heat Sink Optimization
- EuroSimE2004_Modeling Heat Transfer and Liquid Flow in Micro-channels 2004
- CFD Analysis of an Elliptical Pin Fin Heat Sink using Ansys Fluent v12.1
- 8.Development of a plate-pin ﬁn heat sink and its
- Kandlikar - Heat Transfer During Flow Boiling
- Shape Optimization of Micro-Channel Heat Sink for Micro-Electronic Cooling
- heat sink
- Turbulence in Micro-channels
- Multiphase Flow Handbook
- Nist Technical Note 1297 s
- HeatSink_101
- heat sink design optimization using the thermal shortcut concept.pdf
- Cavitation in flow through a micro-orifice
- OPTIMUM DESIGN AND SELECTION OF HEAT SINK
- An Air Cooled Heat Sink
- Heat Sink Application
- Electronic Product Design Heat Sink
- FYP Thesis - Optimization of Cooling Performance of a Micro-Channel Heat Sink - Khawaja Aqib Aziz
- Heat Sink1r
- Heat Ex Changers
- Optimum Design of a Radial Heat Sink Under Natural Convection

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd