Evaluation of Active Heat Sinks Design Under Forced

materials
Article
Evaluation of Active Heat Sinks Design under Forced
Convection—Effect of Geometric and Boundary Parameters
Eva C. Silva 1,2, * , Álvaro M. Sampaio 1,2,3 and António J. Pontes 1,2
1 IPC—Institute of Polymers and Composites, Department of Polymer Engineering, Campus de Azurém,

University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal; amsampaio@dep.uminho.pt (Á.M.S.);
pontes@dep.uminho.pt (A.J.P.)
2 DONE Lab—Advanced Manufacturing of Polymers and Tools, Campus de Azurém, University of Minho,
4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
3 Lab2PT, School of Architecture, Campus de Azurém, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
* Correspondence: evacfsilva@dep.uminho.pt
Abstract: This study shows the performance of heat sinks (HS) with different designs under forced
convection, varying geometric and boundary parameters, via computational fluid dynamics simula-
tions. Initially, a complete and detailed analysis of the thermal performance of various conventional
HS designs was taken. Afterwards, HS designs were modified following some additive manufactur-
ing approaches. The HS performance was compared by measuring their temperatures and pressure
drop after 15 s. Smaller diameters/thicknesses and larger fins/pins spacing provided better results.
For fins HS, the use of radial fins, with an inverted trapezoidal shape and with larger holes was
advantageous. Regarding pins HS, the best option contemplated circular pins in combination with

frontal holes in their structure. Additionally, lattice HS, only possible to be produced by additive
manufacturing, was also studied. Lower temperatures were obtained with a hexagon unit cell. Lastly,
Citation: Silva, E.C.; Sampaio, Á.M.;
Pontes, A.J. Evaluation of Active Heat
a comparison between the best HS in each category showed a lower thermal resistance for lattice HS.
Sinks Design under Forced Despite the increase of at least 38% in pressure drop, a consequence of its frontal area, the temperature
Convection—Effect of Geometric and was 26% and 56% lower when compared to conventional pins and fins HS, respectively, and 9% and
Boundary Parameters. Materials 2021, 28% lower when compared to the best pins and best fins of this study.
14, 2041. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma14082041 Keywords: heat sink; computational fluid dynamics; simulation; ANSYS Fluent; additive manufac-
turing; lattice structures; design of experiments
Academic Editors: Scott
M. Thompson and Ludwig Cardon
Received: 27 February 2021 1. Introduction

Accepted: 15 April 2021
All electronic devices dissipate heat during their operation. By providing heat dis-
Published: 18 April 2021
sipation, a heat sink prevents overheating and plays an imperative role in temperature
regulation. Through extended surfaces, heat sinks increase heat dissipation from a heat
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
source to the surroundings, providing low thermal resistance (Equation (1)) and a low-
published maps and institutional affil-
pressure loss path between them [1]. They can be divided into two main categories: active
iations.
and passive cooling techniques. The use of natural techniques is known as passive thermal
management while forced heat dissipation, e.g., by cooling fans, improving heat transfer, is
referred to as active thermal management [2–5]. The main advantages of passive cooling
techniques are their simplicity and lower cost of operation. However, the associated heat
transfer coefficient (h) is low [6]. Forced convection with cooling fans is a process frequently
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
found in a variety of electronic products ranging from personal computers to avionics
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
control systems [7]. Airflow speed is actively increased, enhancing heat transfer [6]. The
distributed under the terms and
most typical material for heat sinks is aluminium, offering a good balance between weight,
conditions of the Creative Commons
cost, and thermal properties [8–11].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Nowadays, as electronic components continue to dissipate more heat and, with new de-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ velopments, are getting more compact, their cooling techniques must also be improved [7].
4.0/). Due to its geometric freedom and the capability to build complex internal structures and
Materials 2021, 14, 2041. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14082041 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2021, 14, 2041 2 of 19
with high total area to volume ratio, additive manufacturing can be a useful way to produce
heat sinks that match or outperform the thermal performance of traditional aluminium heat
sinks [12]. Chinthavali et al. [13] produced the first heat sink for electronic components by
additive manufacturing using powder-bed fusion (PBF) equipment. The toughness of the
heat sink produced with the additive manufacturing aluminium alloy was similar to the
strength of the heat sink produced by conventional methods, but the thermal performance
was lower for lower temperatures. Later, Syed-Khaja et al. [14] used PBF to fabricate a heat
sink design that showed key enabling advantages such as the reduction in volume, weight,
and chip temperatures. To date, several other studies have emerged regarding heat sinks
produced by additive manufacturing [5,15–20].
This study aims to evaluate the performance of different heat sinks. In the first stage,
the influence of different geometric and boundary parameters on the performance of
conventional fins/pins heat sinks will be evaluated. Based on those results, the design
of the heat sinks will be changed considering some additive manufacturing approaches
and compared with lattice heat sinks, which are complex structures only possible to
be produced by additive manufacturing. Finally, the best heat sink design for forced
convection environments, among the studied, will be revealed.
Heat sinks performance was evaluated considering their thermal resistance
(Equation (1)), which is one of the main indicators and should be as low as possible.
It is expressed as:
∆T
R= (1)
Qheat
where ∆T is the difference between the minimum temperature of the heat sink and the
fluid temperature at the inlet and Qheat is the total heat applied at the base of the heat sink,
given by multiplying the heat flux by the base area [21,22].
In this work, both the heat source and air flow inlet velocity are constant parameters
and were defined at the base of the heat sink and the beginning of the wind tunnel,
respectively. The performance of a heat sink design was evaluated by measuring their
temperature after 15 s of applied heat and air flow (directly correlated with the thermal
resistance according to Equation (3)). Besides the temperature control, the air pressure drop
after 15 s was used as an auxiliary control metric to compare studies where the temperature
differential was residual or an anormal air pressure was identified.
1.1. Conventional Heat Sinks Design and Topology

Heat sink design is the most important variable for better performance. It minimizes
thermal resistance by expanding the surface area available for heat transfer while ensuring
that the air flows through the heat sink [3].
Choosing the type of heat sink (pins, fins, or blades) is an ambiguous task. Under
forced convection, Wong et al. [23] defended that fins are the best choice (among fins,
blades, and circular pins), while Abdelsalam et al. [24] compared in-line blades with fins
and concluded that the first was better. In its turn, Jonsson and Moshfegh [25] tested
different heat sinks models considering Reynolds numbers in a range between 3350 and
13,400 using ANSYS Fluent software and concluded that it is not favorable to use pin heat
sinks at higher Reynolds numbers.
When choosing a fin heat sink, it is typical to choose the conventional rectangular fins.
Still, other forms of fins have been tested, such as triangular or trapezoidal fins [26,27], with
fillets [28] or holes. Jaffal [29] analysed the thermal performance of different fin heat sinks
geometries, via experimental and computational studies, at a certain heat flux interval. It
was found that the heat transfer coefficient is dependent on heat flux and that the heat
sink with perforated blades showed the best thermal performance. Through simulations
in ANSYS software, Ibrahim et al. [30] investigated the effect of perforation geometry
(circular, rectangular, and triangular) on the heat transfer of perforated fin heat sinks, under
different boundary conditions. In all cases, these perforations increased the heat transfer
coefficient and decreased heat sink temperature, regardless of perforation geometry. Tijani
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 3 of 19
and Jaffri [31] also studied the effect of circular perforations on pins or fins heat sinks under
forced convection. Inlet velocity and heat flux were constant and perforated pins or fins
had the highest heat transfer coefficients, improving thermal efficiency up to 4% compared
to solid pins or fins.
When choosing a pin heat sink, several authors agree that square pins are not a good
choice [32–34] and that pressure drop is higher when pins arrangement is staggered [25,35–
37]. However, there is no agreement regarding the best pins shape. Under forced convec-
tion, either circular [33,38], elliptical [32,39–42], dropform [43,44], and rhombus [45,46] can
be advantageous. Gururatana and Li [40] compared elliptic and rectangular staggered
pins with the same length-to-thickness ratio but with different hydraulic diameters. As
boundary conditions, an inlet velocity of 6 m/s at 27 ◦ C rendered a Reynolds number
of 1192 (laminar flow). Through ANSYS Fluent simulations, they concluded that elliptic
fins produced a higher heat transfer rate when the pressure drop is the same. Moreover,
Zhou and Catton [39] investigated the thermal and hydraulic performance of different pin
heat sinks with distinct pins shapes including square, circular, elliptic, and dropform. The
elliptic pins had the best overall performance, regardless of inlet velocity and the ratio
of pin widths to pins spacing. There are still other unusual shapes that can be a good
choice [47,48]. Maji et al. [47] investigated the thermal performance of heat sinks with
perforated circular pins. Results were taken for Reynolds numbers from 4700 to 44,500 and
concluded that, up to a certain perforated area, perforated pins required lower pumping
power than solid pins to reach the same thermal performance. Perforated pins were also
investigated by other authors that also agree on their advantages [49,50].
The greatest fin or pin spacing is dependent on the air velocity, i.e., as the velocity
increases, the fin spacing can decrease [3,51]. However, the dependence of heat transfer
with fin or pin spacing is not clear. According to some authors [37,39,44], the heat transfer
increases with increasing fin or pin density, i.e., with reduced spacing. Contrarily, according
to other authors, greater heat transfer is obtained for the opposite [37,52,53].
1.2. Lattice Heat Sinks

As mentioned above, in the field of electronics cooling, where oversized heat sinks
are inhibited by volume constraints, the use of additive manufacturing offers the ability to
deliver components without the design restrictions of conventional manufacturing meth-
ods [48,54]. Lattice structures have showed high potential in increasing forced convection
heat transfer. They consist of orderly unit cell arrangements, which can have different
configurations such as hexagon, honeycomb, and pyramidal [55]. They have large surface
area-to-volume ratios, are light, and promote tortuous fluid paths, promoting fluid mixing.
Their advantage over metal foams are constant periodicity and homogeneity allowing
optimization of the ligament configuration and diameter, better mechanical properties, and
greater ease of production with emerging additive manufacturing technologies [54–56]. The
study of the fluid flow through them has become popular in thermal management [55–59].
Although the lattice structure heat sink allows a high surface area to volume ratios,
its performance may be limited by the absense of interaction between the cooling air and
structure [7]. According to Ho et al. [55], pressure drop and Nusselt number of Rhombi-
Octet lattice structures increased with decreasing unit cell size and the highest Nusselt
number was obtained with the lattice structure with the smallest ligament width. The same
conclusion was obtained by Son et al. [60].
Regarding the best unit cell topology for thermal management, there is no clear conclu-
sion. For example, according to Yan et al. [61], the X-type lattice heat sink provides overall
heat removal capacity up to two times higher than tetrahedral or the Kagome lattice heat
sink. Its morphology resulted in a large scale spiral main flow that interacts with several
secondary flows, causing three times higher pressure drop for a given Reynolds number.
Still, superior heat transfer was achieved by the X-type lattice. The same conclusion was not
made by Hyun and Torquato [62]. They suggested that Kagome structures have desirable
heat-dissipation properties due to the large hexagonal holes through which fluid may flow,
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 number. Still, superior heat transfer was achieved by the X-type lattice. The same conclu-4 of 19
sion was not made by Hyun and Torquato [62]. They suggested that Kagome structures
have desirable heat-dissipation properties due to the large hexagonal holes through which
fluid may flow, compared
compared to triangular
to triangular and hexagonal
and hexagonal cells. Morecells. MoreDixit
recently, recently,
et al. Dixit et al. [63] that
[63] concluded
concluded that octet dissipates
octet topology topology dissipates
more heatmore
at theheat at the
lowest lowest Reynolds
Reynolds numbers numbers while
while SC-BCC-truss
SC-BCC-truss outperforms
outperforms other architectures
other architectures as velocity
as the fluid the fluidincreases.
velocity increases.
2. Problem
2. Problem Description
Description
2.1. Methodology
2.1. CFD CFD Methodology
As in other studies involving heat sinks, the main goal is to reach heat sink tem-
As in other studies involving heat sinks, the main goal is to reach heat sink tempera-
peratures as low as possible, minimizing thermal resistance. The computational domain
tures as low as possible, minimizing thermal resistance. The computational3domain (Fig-
(Figure 1) includes a heat sink (main dimensions 50 × 50 × 50 mm ) and a wind tun-
ure 1) includes a heat sink (main dimensions 50 × 50 × 50 mm3) and a wind tunnel, de-
nel, designed so that the total flow converges to the heat sink, avoiding the bypass phe-
signed so that the total flow converges to the heat sink, avoiding the bypass phenomenon
nomenon [25,55]. It was considered a fan diameter of 80 mm. The dimensions of the
[25,55]. It was considered a fan diameter of 80 mm. The dimensions of the domain are a
domain are a length of 300 mm and a converging width and height from 80 mm to 52 mm.
length of 300 mm and a converging width and height from 80 mm to 52 mm. Heat sink is
Heat sink is placed inside the domain, 200 mm away from the inlet and 50 mm from
placed inside the domain, 200 mm away from the inlet and 50 mm from the outlet.
the outlet.
Pressure sensors
outlet Temperature sensor
(0, 24.5, 200); (0, 24.5, 250)
(0, 24.5, 225)
100 mm
52 mm
Inlet (fan)
y
50 mm z
80 mm
100 mm
x
FigureFigure 1. Computational
1. Computational domain.
domain.
The geometry
The geometry was meshed
was meshed usingusing
ANSYSANSYS Meshing
Meshing by applying
by applying body body
sizingsizing operation
operation
and, depending on the heat sink model under study, were considered tetrahedral or hexa-
and, depending on the heat sink model under study, were considered tetrahedral or hex-
hedral elements. Element size varied in a range between 0.4 mm and 1.2 mm and the total
ahedral elements. Element size varied in a range between 0.4 mm and 1.2 mm and the
number of elements was the one whose results converged, with minimal computational
total number of elements was the one whose results converged, with minimal computa-
effort, i.e., sufficient to ensure mesh independence of the simulated results.
tional effort, i.e., sufficient to ensure mesh independence of the simulated results.
Mesh geometry (Figure 2) was brought into Fluent, where solver settings were defined.
Mesh geometry (Figure 2) was brought into Fluent, where solver settings were de-
This includes defining material properties, selecting appropriate physical models, prescrib-
fined. This includes defining material properties, selecting appropriate physical models,
ing operating and boundary conditions, and providing initial values. Table 1 includes the
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEWprescribing operating and boundary conditions, and providing initial values. Table 5 of 1
19in-
main properties of the materials adopted for each component: aluminium for the heat
cludes the main properties of the materials adopted for each component: aluminium for
sink and ideal air as the fluid passing through the heat sink. The air flow was assumed
the heat sink and ideal air as the fluid passing through the heat sink. The air flow was
incompressible with constant properties.
assumed incompressible with constant properties.
Table 1. Main properties of the materials considered for each component.
Aluminium Air
Property
(Heat Sink) (Fluid Domain)
Density (kg·m3) 2719 1.225
Specific heat (J·kg−1·°C−1) 871 1006.43
Thermal conductivity (W·m−1·°C−1) 202.4 0.0242
Viscosity (kg·m−1·s−1) - 1.7894 × 10−5
Figure 2. Lattice
Figure heat
2. Lattice heatsink
sinkmesh.
mesh.
As initial values, the system was considered at a room temperature of 20 °C. The
outlet vent condition was used for the outlet boundary and the wind tunnel wall consid-
ered adiabatic. The remaining boundary conditions (heat source temperature and inlet air
velocity) were established according to each specific case.
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 5 of 19
Table 1. Main properties of the materials considered for each component.
Aluminium Air
Property
(Heat Sink) (Fluid Domain)
Density (kg·m3 ) 2719 1.225
Specific heat (J·kg−1 ·◦ C−1 ) 871 1006.43
Thermal conductivity (W·m−1 ·◦ C−1 ) 202.4 0.0242
Figure 2.Viscosity
Figure Lattice heat
2. Lattice msink
(kg·heat s−mesh.
−1 ·sink
1 ) mesh. - 1.7894 × 10−5
AsAsinitial
As initial values,
initial values, the
values,thethesystem
system
system waswas
was considered
considered
considered atata room
aatroom
a room temperature
temperature
temperature of 20 of◦20 °C.
of The
C. 20 °C.The The
outlet
outlet
vent vent
outlet condition
vent
condition waswas
condition was
used used
forusedfor the
thefor outlet
the
outlet boundary
outlet
boundary boundaryandand and
the the wind
the
wind windtunnel
tunnel tunnel
wallwall consid-
wall consid-
considered
ered adiabatic.
ered adiabatic.
adiabatic. TheTheremaining
remaining
The remaining boundary
boundary
boundary conditions
conditions
conditions (heat
(heat source
(heat source
source temperature
temperature
temperature and inlet
and
and airair
inlet
inlet air
velocity) were
velocity) wereestablished
established according
according to each
to
velocity) were established according to each specific case. specific
each specific case.case.
During
During
During compute
compute
compute solution,
solution,
solution, thethediscretised
the discretised
discretised conservation
conservation
conservation equations
equations
equations (Equations
(Equations
(Equations (4)–(6))
(4)–(6))
(4)–(6))
arearesolved
aresolved iteratively
solvediteratively until
iterativelyuntil convergence,
untilconvergence,
convergence,i.e.,i.e., when
i.e.,when changes
whenchanges in solution
changesininsolution variables
solutionvariables from
variablesfrom one
from one
one
iteration
iterationtoto
iteration the
tothenext
the are
next
next negligible
are
are negligible
negligible (residual
(residual
(residual response
response
response less than
less
less than 10
than 10 ×10
×10 −6
× 10
10 −). ).
6 As
−6).Asthethe
As most
the most
most
widely-used
widely-used
widely-used engineering
engineering
engineering turbulence
turbulence
turbulence modelmodel
model for for
for industrial
industrial
industrial applications,
applications,standard
applications, standardϏ Ϗ-Epsilon
standard -Epsi-
-Epsilon
lon viscous
viscous
viscous model
model
model (Equations
(Equations
(Equations (6) (6)
(6) andand
and (7))(7))
(7)) was
was
was selected.
selected.
selected. The
The
The pressure-velocity
pressure-velocity
pressure-velocity coupling
coupling
coupling was
was
was achieved
achieved through
through the
the SIMPLE
SIMPLE scheme
scheme [64]
[64] and and thethe Least
Least
achieved through the SIMPLE scheme [64] and the Least Squares Cell Based gradients were Squares
Squares CellCell Based
Based gradients
gradients were
were choose
choose
choose as
thethe
asasthe spatial
spatial
spatial discretization
discretization
discretization scheme
scheme
scheme [65].
[65]. [65].
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure dropdropacross
drop across
across thethe heat
the sink
heat
heat and
sink
sink itsits
and
and temperature
itstemperature
temperature were were
were reported
reported
reported after 1515
after
after s15on
s sonon
thetherespective
therespective
respective sensors
sensors (Figure
sensors (Figure
(Figure 1).1).
The
1).The temperature
The temperature
temperature sensor
sensor
sensorwas was
waslocated
located
locatedwhere,
where,
where, asasgeneral
asgeneral
general
rule, thethe
rule,
rule, heat
the sink
heat
heat temperature
sink
sink temperature waswas thethe
was minimum
theminimum
minimum [66]. Considering
[66].
[66]. Considering
Considering a time a step
a timetime size
step
step ofsize
size one of
of one
second
one with
second
second 10with
with maximum
10 maximum iterations
10 maximum iterations perper
iterations time step,
per
time time
step,thestep,
15 s15
the were
the 15
s were found
s found
were to betoabe
found good
ato balance
be
good abalance
good
balance
between
between between
good goodresultsgood
andresults
results and and computational
computational
computational effort (Figure
effort effort
(Figure (Figure
3) once,
3) once, in 3)inonce,
most incases,
cases,
most most
thethecases,
temper- the
temper-
temperature
ature reached
ature reached reached
the the steady-state
steady-state
the steady-state condition.
condition.condition.
Figure 3. Temperature
Figure
Figure contours
3.3.Temperature
Temperature vs.vs.
contours
contours time
vs.timeforfor
time each type
foreach
each of of
type
type heat sink.
ofheat
heat sink.
sink.
2.2.
2.2. CFD
2.2. CFD Governing
Governing
CFD Governing Equations
Equations
Equations
Computational
Computational
Computational Fluid
Fluid Dynamics
Dynamics
Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
(CFD)
(CFD)consists
consists of
ofpredicting
consists predicting fluid
of predicting flow,
fluid heat,
flow,
fluid and
heat,
flow, mass
and
heat, and
transfer
mass and
transfer related
and phenomena
related phenomena by solving
by numerically
solving numericallya setaof governing
set of
mass transfer and related phenomena by solving numerically a set of governing mathe- mathematical
governing mathe-
equations.
matical
matical CFD CFD
equations.
equations. analysis
CFD complements
analysis complements
analysis testing
complements and and
testing experimentation
testing experimentation
and by reducing
experimentation by by
reducingtotal
reducing
effort
total
total and
effort
effortcost
andand required
costcost
requiredfor experimentation
for for
required experimentation
experimentationand data
andanddataacquisition.
acquisition.
data acquisition.There
There are a number
areare
There a num-
a num-
berofber
ofcommercial
commercial
of commercial CFD
CFD software
CFDsoftware packages
packages
software available
available
packages for for
for
available application
application
application inthermal
in thermal
in design.
design.
thermal One
One
design. One
of
of themthem
of them is ANSYS.
is ANSYS.
is ANSYS. Based
Based
Based on
on on the
thethe finite
finite volume
volume
finite volume method,
method,
method, ANSYS
ANSYS
ANSYS solvers
solvers discretised
discretised
solvers the
discretised the
the
domain into a finite set of control volumes in which general conservation equations for
mass (Equation (2)), momentum (Equation (3)) and energy (Equation (4)) are solved [67].
→
∇· ρ u = 0 (2)
→ → →

u ·∇ ρ u = ∇P + ∇· µ∇ u (3)
→
u ·∇ ρC p T = ∇·(k∇ Ti ) (4)
domain into a finite set of control volumes 5 of 19 in which general conservation equations for
domain intodomain a finiteinto set of a finite
control setvolumes
of control in
domain volumes
which into generalin
a which
finite conservation
setgeneralof control conservation
equationsvolumes for equations for
Materials
domain
mass domain
into
(Equation
2021, 14, x(3))FOR PEER
a5 finite into
(2)),
ofMaterials
REVIEW 19 seta
momentum
2021,
finite
of control
14,energy
set
x FOR PEER
of control
volumes
(Equation
REVIEW
volumes
in
(3)) andinenergy
which inwhichwhich
general general
general
conservation
(Equation conservation
conservation
(4)) are equations
solved equations
equations
for
[67].
6 of 19
forfo
mass (Equation mass(2)), (Equation
momentum (2)), momentum
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER
(Equation
mass
REVIEW
(Equation
mass
(Equationmass and energy
(Equation
(Equation (3))
(2)), momentum and
(Equation
(2)),
(2)), momentum
momentum (4))(Equation
(Equation are solved
(Equation
(Equation (4))
(3)) and(3)) [67].
are solved
(3))
energyand and [67].
energyenergy
(Equation (Equation
(Equation
(4))6 ofare 19(4)) (4))
solved are are solved
[67].solved [67].
[67]
at sink mesh. Materials 2021, 14, 2041 ∇ ∙ (𝜌𝑢⃗) = 0 6 of 19 (2)
∇ ∙ (𝜌𝑢⃗) = 0∇ ∙ (𝜌𝑢⃗) = 0 ∇ ∙ (𝜌𝑢⃗)∇=∙∇(2) (𝜌𝑢
0∙ (𝜌𝑢⃗) ⃗) == 0 0 (2) (2) (2)(2
Figure 2. Lattice heat sink mesh.
domain into a finite (𝑢⃗set ∙ ∇)(𝜌𝑢
of domain ⃗) = volumes
control ∇P +
into ∇ in
a finite ∙ (μ∇𝑢 set ⃗)
which of general
control volumes conservation in which equations general (3)
forconservat
he system was considered at a room (𝑢⃗ ∙temperature
∇)(𝜌𝑢⃗)domain =(𝑢⃗∇P + ∇20
∙ ∇)(𝜌𝑢
of
into ∙ finite
a⃗) (μ∇𝑢
= ∇P
°C.
mass ⃗)
The
set +of∇control
(Equation ∙ (μ∇𝑢 (2)), (𝑢 ⃗)
volumes
⃗momentum
∙ ∇)(𝜌𝑢 (𝑢
mass⃗in
(𝑢 which
⃗)∙⃗and
∇)(𝜌𝑢
=∙(Equation
∇)(𝜌𝑢
∇P
(Equation +(3)
general
⃗) ⃗)=∇(2)),
=∇P conservation
∇P
∙ (μ∇𝑢
(3)) +
and + ∇ ∙∇→
⃗)energy
momentum (3)
(μ∇𝑢
∙ (μ∇𝑢 equations(4))
⃗) ⃗)velocity
(Equation
(Equation for are
(3)) andsolvedenergy[67]. (3)
(Equation (3)(4
(3
Note
mass that
(Equation ρ and (2)), µ are
momentum the fluid (Equation density
𝑢⃗ ∙ ∇ at 𝜌𝐶 (3)) and viscosity
𝑇 = temperature
energy ∇ ∙ (𝑘∇𝑇 ) (Equationand u of 20 °C. The vector. The
(4)) is arethe solved [67]. (4)
s used for the outlet boundaryAs and initial
the wind values, tunnel the system wall consid- was considered a room
𝑢⃗ energy
∙ ∇ 𝜌𝐶 𝑇 𝑢=
⃗ ∙ ∇∇ ∙ 𝜌𝐶 (𝑘∇𝑇
for𝑇solid ) = ∇regions ∙ (𝑘∇𝑇 )[68] 𝑢⃗ ∙ ∇ 𝑢⃗⃗) ∙𝑢
𝑇⃗=∇ ∙ 0∇=𝜌𝐶𝜌𝐶 ∇(4) ∇ ∙as:
𝑇 𝑇(𝜌𝑢
=⃗)= =∙ (𝑘∇𝑇
)∇0∙ (𝑘∇𝑇
∇tunnel (4)) ) ∇ ∙ (𝜌𝑢⃗) = 0 (2)
∇ ∙ 𝜌𝐶 ∙ (𝑘∇𝑇
equation can (𝜌𝑢
be written (4) (4)(4
ining boundary conditions outlet
(heatvent source condition
temperature was used and for inlet the airoutlet boundary and the wind wall consid-(2)
Note that 𝜌 and 𝜇 are the fluid density and (𝑢⃗ ∙viscosity
∇)(𝜌𝑢⃗) = ∇P and + ∇ ∙𝑢⃗(μ∇𝑢 is⃗)(𝑢the velocity
⃗ ∙ ∇)(𝜌𝑢 ⃗) = ∇Pvector. + ∇ ∙ (μ∇𝑢The ⃗)(3)
Note that to
d according 𝜌Note
each𝜇that
and are𝜌ered
specific the
and 𝜇 are
fluid
adiabatic.
case. density
the fluid
The and density
remainingviscosity
𝜌 and and𝜌and
boundary
𝜇 𝜌and 𝑢⃗𝜇 is
viscosity the and
conditions
𝜇regions ⃗velocity
(𝑢the 𝑢⃗fluid
∙ fluid
∇)(𝜌𝑢 is
(heat
⃗) the
= vector. velocity
2 source
∇P The vector.
temperature and 𝑢The ⃗ andisand the𝑢⃗inlet ⃗ isthe
𝑢is air
Note
energy Note
that Note
equation that that for are and
solid the are are
fluid the density
[68] kcansdensity
∇ and beT+written
density = ∇ ∙and
0(μ∇𝑢
viscosity and ⃗)viscosity
as:viscosity and velocity (3)velocity
the velocityvector.
vector. Thevector.The
(5) Th
energy
lution, theequation energy
discretised forequation
solid regions
velocity)
conservation for solid [68]energy
were
equationsregions
can beenergy
established written
[68]
(Equations can as:
according be written
(4)–(6)) to each as: specific case. 𝑢⃗ ∙ ∇ 𝜌𝐶 𝑇 = ∇ ∙ (𝑘∇𝑇 ) 𝑢⃗ ∙ ∇ 𝜌𝐶 𝑇 = ∇ ∙ (𝑘∇𝑇 ) (4)
energy
equation equation
equation
for solid forfor solid
regions solid regionsregions
[68] can
𝑢⃗ ∙ ∇ 𝜌𝐶 𝑇 = ∇ ∙ (𝑘∇𝑇 ) [68]
be[68] can can
written be be written
written
as: as: as: (4)
til convergence, i.e., when changes During compute
in solution These solution,
variables equations fromthe
Notediscretised
that 𝜌solved
one
are and 𝜇 conservation
are with the Note fluid
the𝑘 ∇that 𝑇equations
density 𝜌=and
presumption 0and𝜇 viscosity
are(Equations
thethat fluid
and 𝑢⃗ is
density
radiation (4)–(6))
theand velocityviscosity
heat vector.
transferandThe (5)
𝑢⃗ is the ve
𝑘Note ∇ 𝑇−6 =
that 0𝜌 and 𝑘 energy
∇𝜇 𝑇 are=the 0
equationfluid density
for solid andregions
energy viscosity
𝑘 ∇ [68] 𝑇 =
equation can
(5)
𝑘solution
0∇ be
𝑘
and 𝑢
∇𝑇for⃗𝑇=solid
is =
written0 0 regions
the (5)
velocity
as: vector.
[68] can The
be written as: (5) (5)(5
negligible (residual response are solved less than iteratively
10 energy
isThese × 10
negligible. until ). convergence,
As the most i.e., when changes in variables from one
equations equation are forsolvedsolid regions with[68] thecan presumption
be written as: that radiation heat transfer is negligible.
These equations
g turbulence Theseare
model equations
for solved
industrial with
iteration are applications,
solved
thethe
to presumption
with
next
The the
are presumption
standard that
negligible radiation
Ϗ -Epsilon
-Epsi- that
(residual heat radiation
viscous transfer
response model heatisthe negligible.
lesstransfer
used than in 𝑘is10∇ negligible.
𝑇×study
= 10 −6
0that ). As the most 𝑘 ∇transfer
𝑇transfer
= 0 model (5)
These The These These
equationsstandardequations
equations
are solved
Ϗ-Epsilon are are solved
withsolved
viscous the with with the
presumption
model
𝑘 ∇ 𝑇 =used
presumption
presumption
0 inthis
that that
radiation
this study is isa asemi-empirical
radiation
radiation
heat heat
transfer heat
semi-empirical (5)is negligible.
is is
model negligible.
negligible
ations (6) Theand standard
(7)) The
was Ϗ-Epsilon
standard
widely-used
selected. Ϗ-Epsilon
viscous model viscous
engineering
The pressure-velocity
based on used
model model
Thein this
turbulence used
coupling
transport
standard study in
model isthis
equations
Ϗ-Epsilona semi-empirical
for study industrial
for is
the
viscous a semi-empirical
turbulence model
applications,
model used kinetic in model
standard
energy
this study ( Ϗ )-Epsi-
and
is its dissipation
The
basedThese standard
on model The
equations
standard
Ϗ-Epsilon
These
transport
are
equations
solved
Ϗ-Epsilon
viscous
equations
with
are solved
theϏ-Epsilon
viscous
model These
with
for the turbulence
presumption
used
the model
equations
that
in
presumption
radiation
used
this
are study
solved in
that
kinetic
heat
this is
radiation
with astudy
the
energy (Ϗ) and its dissipa- model
semi-empirical
presumption
heat a
is semi-empirical
a
transfer semi-empirical
that
is model
negligible.
radiation mode
heat tran
he based
SIMPLE onscheme
model
basedtransport
on and
[64] model
lontheequations
transport
viscous for
model
Least Squaresrate equations
based the
(ε), turbulence
(Equations
Cell
obtained
based
on based
modelfor
Based on the
on (6)
model kinetic
gradients
from turbulence
model
transport and the
The energy
(7))
following
standard
transport
transport
equations kinetic
was (Ϗ)
equations and
selected. energy
transport
equations
for the itsThe
viscous dissipa-
The
for (Ϗ)
for and
standard
turbulence model
the the its
pressure-velocity
equations: used
turbulence
turbulence in transfer
dissipa-
Ϗ-Epsilon
kinetic thiskinetic
viscous
study is
kinetic
energy
negligible.
coupling
ismodel
a(Ϗ)
energysemi-empirical
energy
and used (Ϗ) in
its(Ϗ) this
and and model
dissipa- study
its its is a sem
dissipa-
dissipa
tion rate The (ε), standard
obtained based
from
Ϗ-Epsilon
on model
the
viscous following
transport model transport
used
equations
based onin this
model
for the
equations:
study is a semi-empirical
transport
turbulence equations
kinetic for model
energy the(Ϗ) turbulence
and its dissipa- kinetic energy (
tion rate (ε),tion
al discretization obtained
rate (ε),
scheme fromobtained
was
[65]. the
achieved following
from tion the
through transport
rate following
tion
based
the
tion
(ε),onrate rateequations:
SIMPLE
obtained
model
transport
(ε), (ε),
transport
scheme
obtained
obtained
from equations:
the
equations
[64]
from from
following and
the
for the the
following
the
Least
following
transport
turbulence
Squares
transport
transport
equations:
kinetic
Cell
energy
Based
equations:
equations:
(Ϗ) and
gradients
its dissipa-
𝜕 tion rate 𝜕 (ε), obtained 𝜕 fromtion the following𝜇
rate (ε),𝜕Ϗ obtained
transport from equations:
the following transport equations:
" ! #
ss the heat sink were choosewere as the spatial discretization on scheme ∂ [65].transport
𝜕 and its temperature
𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕 reported
tion 𝜇∂rate 𝜕𝜕Ϗ after
(ε), 15
+ 𝜕𝜇+𝜕 𝜕𝜕Ϗ
obtained ∂ s from the following µt equations: ∂

(𝜌Ϗ) (𝜌Ϗ𝑢
(𝜌Ϗ) )+= ρ (𝜌Ϗ)
𝜕 ρ (𝜌Ϗ𝑢
ui𝜕 𝜕=)𝜕 = 𝜕𝜕 µ𝜇+𝜕+𝜕 𝜇𝜎𝑌𝜕 were 𝜕Ϗ𝜕 (6) 𝜇𝜇 +𝜇+𝜕Ϗ 𝐺G Ϗ 𝜕++𝐺G
𝜕Ϗ
𝜕Ϗ −b− 𝜌𝜀ρε 𝜕− −𝑌YM +𝜇+ 𝑆ϏS𝜕Ϗ (6)(6)
ure 2. Lattice
Figure 1). Theheat sink
temperature +mesh. sensorPressure was (𝜌Ϗ𝑢 drop 𝜇+
located )across
=∂twhere, 𝜕𝑡 the 𝜇
(𝜌Ϗ)
𝜕 +
as+ 𝐺
heatgeneral
+
∂x +
Ϗ (𝜌Ϗ) 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝐺
sink
(𝜌Ϗ) +
(𝜌Ϗ𝑢− +
and
+ 𝜌𝜀 𝐺)
(𝜌Ϗ) − its
Ϗ(𝜌Ϗ𝑢
= +
∂x𝑌
(𝜌Ϗ𝑢
+
𝜕 𝜕𝑥
𝐺 + − 𝑆
temperature
) (𝜌Ϗ𝑢=) Ϗ𝜌𝜀
𝜇=
𝜇 +)=− 𝜕Ϗ
σ Ϗ𝜇 + +𝜕𝑥
𝜇
∂x 𝜇𝑆(𝜌Ϗ)
+ +Ϗ+reported
+𝐺 + + 𝐺
(𝜌Ϗ𝑢
+ +𝐺𝐺 −after
(6)𝐺)++𝜌𝜀
= 𝐺+𝐺 −−15
𝐺 −𝑌
𝜌𝜀 s𝜇−
𝜌𝜀
−+on
+ 𝜌𝜀
𝑌 −𝑆 𝑌
−
+ 𝑆 𝑌 + ++𝑆 𝐺 𝑆 + 𝐺
(6) − 𝜌𝜀 (6)
(6) −𝑌 (6
mesh. was the𝜕𝑡minimum 𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑥 𝜎Ϗ𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 (𝜌Ϗ) 𝜎𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑡𝜕𝑥)𝜕𝑥
i j j Ϗ
Ϗ Ϗ Ϗ Ϗ Ϗ Ϗ
rature the
[66].respective
Considering sensors
a time (Figure
step𝜕𝑡size 𝜕𝑡
1). Ϗ
+
of 𝜕𝑥
The one(𝜌Ϗ𝑢
temperature = 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜇 + 𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑥
sensor 𝜎Ϗwas𝜕𝑥+𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑡 Ϗ𝜎
𝐺located+Ϗ𝜎 𝜎ϏϏ𝜕𝑥
𝐺 −Ϗ𝜕𝑥
𝜕𝑥𝜌𝜀 − 𝑌 + as
where, 𝑆Ϗ𝜕𝑥general 𝜎(6)
Ϗ
Ϗ 𝜕𝑥
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝑥 𝜕" 𝜕𝑥 𝜎 𝜕𝑥
𝜇 𝜕 𝜕𝜀𝜕# 𝜇 𝜕𝜀𝜀𝜕
Ϗ 𝜀 𝜀
minitial
iterations 𝜕 perthe
values, time system𝜕 rule,
𝜕step, was
the 15the s𝜕𝜕were
considered
heatfoundsink 𝜇 at 𝜕to
∂𝜕𝜀𝜕 (𝜌𝜀)
a be
temperatureroom a𝜕 good 𝜇𝜕temperature
+∂𝜀𝜕was 𝜕𝜀
balance
𝜕(𝐺 𝜕 +
(𝜌𝜀𝑢the𝜕𝜕minimum
)𝜕=
(𝜌𝜀) 𝜀∂𝜕+𝜕20𝜕°C.
of (𝜌𝜀𝑢 𝜇+𝜕𝜀The
𝜇[66]. )µ𝜇𝜕𝜎𝜕𝜀
= Considering
∂ε𝐶𝜇
𝜕𝜀 𝜇 𝜀𝐶
𝜀+
𝜇 (𝜌𝜀)
+ 𝜕𝜀 +𝜕𝜀 𝜀𝑘aε𝑆(𝐺 + 𝐶 +𝜀
time
(𝜌𝜀𝑢
𝜀𝐶 𝜕𝐺size
)step 𝜀(7) 𝜀+ 𝐶)𝜇−+
=(𝐺 𝐺of𝐶𝜇) one 𝜕𝜀 2 +
− 𝐶𝜀𝑘 ε + 𝐶+ 𝑆 𝜀𝑆𝜀 𝜀(𝐺 +(7) 𝐶 𝐺 )−𝐶
emnt was
condition (𝜌𝜀)
considered
was + used at (𝜌𝜀𝑢
a (𝜌𝜀)
for room )
the + = (𝜌𝜀𝑢
temperature
outlet 𝜇 +)
boundary = of 𝜕𝑡
(20
and 𝜇+
(𝜌𝜀)
) ++
°C.𝐶(𝜌𝜀)
the + The 𝜕𝑥
(𝜌𝜀)
+
wind (𝜌𝜀)
( +
(𝜌𝜀𝑢 +
(𝜌𝜀𝑢 +
)𝐶
𝜕𝑡
tunnel𝐶
= ) 𝐺
(𝜌𝜀𝑢
=
= )
(𝐺
𝜕𝑥
(𝜌𝜀𝑢
wall−𝜕𝑥 ) 𝐶
𝜇+ =)+𝜇 𝐶=
+
consid- + 𝐺 t+) 𝑆
𝜇
𝜕𝑥 −𝜕𝑥
+ +𝜇 𝐶𝜕𝑡+ + + 𝜎
(𝐺𝐶 (7)
C +
𝜕𝑥
+ 𝜕𝑥 𝐶+(𝐺( +
𝐺
G𝐶 𝐶
+
) +− 𝑘𝐶𝐶 (𝐺
C (𝐺
𝜕𝑥𝐺 G + ) ++
)𝐶
− −
𝑆 𝐶𝐶 𝐺
𝜎C 𝐺) 𝜕𝑥− ) 𝐶
−+ 𝑘
+ 𝐶𝑆 Sε𝑘 + (7) +
(7)
𝑆(7) 𝑆 (7)(7
d computational𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑡(Figure
effort second 𝜕𝑥
3)𝜕𝑥 with
once,10inmaximum𝜎
most 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥
∂t𝜕𝑡
ρε
cases, 𝜕𝑡 𝜎
iterations
the
𝜕𝑡∂x 𝑘
𝜕𝑡𝜕𝑥i
𝜕𝑥 ρεu
temper-
𝜕𝑥 per
i time
𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑥∂x𝜕𝑥 𝑘 𝜕𝑥 j
step, µ the
𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑥
𝜎 𝑘 15
𝜕𝑥
σ𝜎ε 𝜕𝑥 s were
∂x j 𝜎 𝜎 𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑥 𝑘 𝑘
found 1ε to kbe a good
𝑘k 𝑘𝑘
3ε
𝑘 b balance 2ερ (7)
𝑘k 𝑘𝑘
for thecondition.
abatic.
-state outlet
The boundary
remaining and
boundary
betweentheconditions
wind
goodtunnel results Inwall
(heat and
these consid-
source temperature
computational
equations, In these and (Figure
effort
equations,
GϏrepresents
represents inletGϏair the 3)generation
representsInonce,thesethe in most
equations,
generation cases,
of turbulenceGϏof the temper-
represents
turbulence thekinetic
kinetic generation
energyenergy ofdue
due
turbulence
to
to kine
In conditions
these equations,In(heat
these Gequations,
Ϗtorepresents GϏthe represents In these
generation the equations,
of
generation
theturbulence
mean Gvelocity
Ϗ of kinetic
turbulence
gradients, theenergygeneration
the kinetic
Gbgeneration
mean
is the due of energy
velocity
generationturbulence
to ofdue
gradients, kinetic
turbulence to
G b is
energy
the kinetic due
generation to ofdue
energy turbulence
to buoy- kinetic ent
oundary
were established according source
ature each temperature
reached specific In and
case. these
steady-state
the mean
Inthethese In
inlet
velocity Inthese
air
these
equations,
equations,condition. equations,
gradients, equations,
G represents
G
representsGis G
Ϗ represents
the represents
the
generation
the generation the the ofgeneration
generation
of
turbulenceof turbulence
turbulenceof ofturbulence
kineticturbulence
kinetic
energy kinetic
kinetic
energy
due toenergy
dueenergy
buoy- to due due to
mean velocity gradients, Ϗ b
Gb is thethe Ϗ
generation of
YMturbulence kinetic energy duekinetic
tointhe
buoy- energy due
the mean velocity
the mean gradients,
velocity G gradients,
b is the generation G b is the of
generation
turbulenceancy, YofM kinetic
turbulence
represents energy kinetic due
ancy,
contribution to
energy buoy-
represents
of the due to
thebuoy-
fluctuating contribution
dilatation of compressible
fluctuating dilatation turbu- in com
rding to each solution,
ing compute specific case. the discretised conservation tothe
ancy,
the mean Ythe
mean
ancy, Mthe Ymeanmean
equations
velocity
represents
Mvelocity
representsvelocity
velocity
gradients,
lence the
gradients,
the gradients,
(Equationsgradients,
Gb is
contribution
contribution
to the overall Gbthe Ggeneration
isof bG
(4)–(6))
the
dissipation
isb is
of
the the
lencethethe generation
generation
fluctuating generation
fluctuatingofdilatation
turbulence
, C2εof
ofdilatation
turbulence
of
turbulence turbulence
inare kinetic
compressible in kinetic
kinetic
energy
Ccompressible
kinetic1εσ, turbu- energyenergy
due
σε C
energy todue due
buoy-
theturbu- tototo
due buoy-
buoy
σϏ and
theancy,
d iterativelyYM represents
discretised ancy,
until YMthe
conservation represents
convergence, contribution
i.e.,the
equations when contribution
of changes
the
(Equations
ancy, Y
lencefluctuating
ancy, ancy,
to of
Y
(4)–(6))
in
represents
the Ythe
solution
overall dilatation
fluctuating
represents
represents
the variables the
contribution
dissipation in
the dilatation
rate, compressible
contribution
contribution
from C 1ε, C one
of the
2ε and
inrate,C
to the
3ε of
C1εoverall
compressible
of turbu-
the
fluctuating
are the
constants,
and
fluctuating
dissipation
C3turbu-
fluctuating
ε
dilatation
σ and σ
rate,
constants,
dilatation
dilatation
in
are
Cand
Ϗ 2ε and
in
compressible
the turbu- in
are
3ε are
compressible
compressible
constants,
turbu-
turbu- turbu-
turbu
lence to the
buoyancy, M YMoverall M
represents
M
lent dissipation
Prandtl thenumbers rate,for
contribution C1εϏlent , and
C2εof and
ε, the
Prandtl Cfluctuating
respectively.3ε are constants,
numbers Sfor Ϗ
Ϗ and Ϗ dilatation
and ε
Sε are ε,σϏrespectively.
andinσεcompressible
user-defined areSsource
Ϗtheandturbu-
Sterms.
ε are user-defin
1ε, C2lent 13ε, are σmodel σC
tolence
vergence, toi.e.,
the next theare lence
overall
when to dissipation
negligible the overall
changes in solution
(residual rate,
dissipation
Cvariables
response
lence
turbulence εrate,
to
lent Prandtl
and
lence
less
the from
lence Cto
Prandtl than
tooverall
the
C
the
one
to
numbers
2ε constants,
numbers
the10and
Theoverall
overall overallC
×Ϗ-epsilon
dissipation10
for
are As
dissipation
and
constants,
for3ε−6Ϗdissipation
and and
ε,
Ϗ). dissipation
Ϗ rate,therespectively.
ε, assumesmost are
ε1rate,
ε,The
rate,
respectively. Cσ2that
rate,Ϗthe
εC Cand
S1ϏC
and
Ϗ-epsilon,,1C
1εεthe C
σ2flow
turbu-
andε,C
εε3Sare
SC
2ε
ε are
2andare
Ϗεmodel
εandisthe
and turbu-
user-defined
C 3Cε 3are
constants,
fully
CSassumes are
turbulent,
ε are
are
source
constants,
constants,
that σϏand
the
constants,
user-defined and flow
theterms.
σeffects
σand
Ϗεis are and
fully
and
Ϗsourcethe
ofσturbulent,
are
σσ are
turbu-
εmolecular
εε the
are
terms. turbu-
the
and turbu
the ef
lent Prandtl lent
numbers
Prandtl for Ϗ
numbers
and ε, for Ϗ
respectively.
and Theε,Ϗ-epsilon S
respectively.
and model S
viscosity assumes
are S user-defined
and
are that
S
negligible the
are flow is fully
user-defined
source
[65,69].viscosity turbulent,
terms.
are source
negligible andε3ε the
terms.
[65,69].effects of molecular
gible engineering
used (residual response turbulence less model
than 10for×the 10 turbulent
industrial
lent −6 lent
).Prandtl
Aslent thePrandtl
Ϗ most
Prandtl
applications,
numbers
Prandtl numbers
ε numbers
for
numbers Ϗ
standard
Ϗ and for for
ε Ϗ
ε,ϏϏtheand and
-Epsi-
respectively. ε, respectively.
ε,ε,respectively.
respectively. SϏ and S and
SϏεSandϏ and
are S are
Sεε Sare
user-definedare user-defined
user-definedsource source
source terms
terms. terms.
The Ϗ-epsilon
viscosity are model
negligible [65,69]. for
assumes that and flow is fully turbulent, and ε the user-defined
effects of molecularsource
The
lence Ϗ-epsilon
model The
for Ϗ-epsilon
model
industrial assumes model that
applications, assumes
the flow
standardthatis
The fully
the
The flow
turbulent,
Ϗ-epsilon
Ϗ -epsilon
Ϗ-epsilon
-Epsi- is fully
model and
model turbulent,
the
assumes
assumes effects and
that ofthe
that molecular
the the effects
flow flow of molecular
isturbulent,
fully
is turbulent,
turbulent, and and the the effects
effects ofof molecular
ous model (Equations (6) and (7)) was selected.
The
terms. Ϗ-epsilon
viscosity The The
are pressure-velocity
model
negligible assumes
model [65,69].
2.3. Heat Sink Models
that
assumes coupling
the flow
that theis fully
2.3. Heat Sink Models flow is fully and the effects
and theof molecular
effects ofmolecula
(6) viscosity
evedand (7)) are
through was viscosity
negligible
the selected.
SIMPLE are[65,69].
negligible
The
scheme [64] [65,69].
pressure-velocity and the
viscosity
molecular 2.3.viscosity
viscosity
coupling
Least
Heat
are Sink
viscosity are
Squares
Models
negligible are
arenegligible
negligible
Cell Based
[65,69].
negligible [65,69].
[65,69].
gradients
[65,69].
The statistical design of experiments The statistical (DOE) design wasofused experiments
to design(DOE) the sets was of used
experi- to design t
PLE scheme
oose as the spatial[64] and the Least Squares
discretization scheme Cell[65].
2.3. Based
Heat The gradients
Sink statistical
Models ments design run in of this
experiments
work for fins (DOE)
ments and was
run pins inused this
heatwork to
sinks,designfor
in fins theand
order sets
to pins of experi-
optimize heat the sinks, main in order
geomet- to optimize
2.3.drop
etization
ssure Heat Sink
scheme
across2.3.
Models
Heat
[65].
the heat Sinksink Models and its2.3. 2.3. Heat
Heatments
temperature 2.3.Sink
2.3.
Sinkrun
Heat in
Models
Heat
were this
Sink
Models ricwork
Sink Models
reported for finsafter
Models
parameters and
(pins/fins pins
15 sheat ricsinks,
on
diameter/thickness
parameters in order toandoptimize
(pins/fins pins/fins thespacing).
main geomet-
diameter/thickness and pins/fins spacing).
The
ric statistical
parameters design
(pins/fins As boundary
of experiments
diameter/thickness conditions, and
the
(DOE)
As pins/fins
temperature
boundary
was spacing).used
conditions,
of the
to
heat
design
the
source temperature
(at
the
the
sets
bottom
of theof
ofheat experi-
thesource
heat (at the b
heat
ectivesink The statistical
and its
sensors (Figure The design
temperature statistical of
1). The temperature experiments
design
were reported of experiments
sensor
The (DOE)
after 15The
was
statistical
The was (DOE)
s locatedused
onwork
design
statistical
statistical to was
where, design
ofdesign used
design as
experiments the to
general
of sets
design
ofexperiments(DOE)
experiments of experi-
thewas sets
(DOE) used
(DOE) of toexperi-
was design
was usedused the to sets
design ofsets experiments
the setssetsofofexperi-
ments The run statistical
As in this
boundary sink)
design
conditions,for
varied
of
fins experiments
the
between and
temperature
80pins°C sink) heat
and of(DOE)
100 thesinks,
varied heat
°C, with
was in
source
between 10
used
order
°C (at
80 the to
to
intervals,
°C and
design
optimize
bottom100and ofto
°C,
the
the
inlet
with
design
theheat
air10 main
velocity
the
of
°C intervals,
experi-
geomet-
took the
exper
and inlet air
1).
heatments
Thesink run in
temperature ments
this
temperature work
run
sensor in
for
was the thisfins work
wasminimum and
locatedrun for
pins fins
ments heat
where,
[66].
in and
thissinks,
ments
run
sink) as pins
Considering
mentsingeneral
work
varied in
run
this heat
runorder
for
in
work
between sinks,
a
this
in time
fins to
this
80 optimize
and
work
for°C in
step
work
fins
and order
pins
forsize
and
100 for to
fins
°C, the
of
heat
fins
pins optimize
withone
andmainsinks,
and
heat
10 pins
°C geomet-
pins
sinks,the
in
heat
intervals,heat main
order in sinks,
sinks,
order
and geomet-
to in
inletoptimize
in
to order
air order
optimize
velocityto the
tooptimize main
optimize
took the the main geometric
the the main
geomet- main geomet-
geomet
ric parameters (pins/fins values 0.7diameter/thickness
m/s, 2.1 m/s andvalues 3.5 m/s and
0.7(at m/s, pins/fins
20 2.1 °C),m/s leadingspacing).
and 3.5
to Reynolds
m/s (at 20numbers °C), leading fromto2500 Reynolds nu
was
with ric10parameters
the minimum
maximum ric parameters
(pins/fins
[66]. Considering
iterations diameter/thickness
per (pins/fins
time step, a timediameter/thickness
thestep
parameters
ric 15ric
values
parameters and
size
sboundary
were
ric 0.7pins/fins
ofm/s,
(pins/fins
parameters
parameters 2.1and
(pins/fins spacing).
one(laminar-turbulent
found m/sto pins/fins
be
and a 3.5
good
diameter/thickness
(pins/fins
(pins/fins m/s
diameter/thickness spacing).
balance
(at 20 (laminar-turbulent
diameter/thickness
diameter/thickness
transition) °C), toleading
and and
12,500pins/fins toand
pins/fins
(very Reynolds
and spacing).
pins/fins
turbulent numbers
pins/fins
spacing).
transition) flow).
to(at from
spacing).
spacing).
12,500 (very2500turbulent flow).
ours vs. time for each type of heat sink. As
(laminar-turbulent
conditions,
transition)
the
tothe 12,500
temperature
(very turbulent
of the
flow).
heat source the bottom of the heat
ions
goodper As
resultsboundary
time and Asconditions,
the boundary
step,computational
15 sFigure
were found the
conditions,
efforttemperature
to be As
(Figure the
aAs good 3) temperature
of
boundary
boundary the
balance
once,
As As heat
in
boundary most
boundary source
conditions, of
conditions, the
Forcases,
fins heat
(atthethe
heat
conditions,
conditions,
the sourcebottom
temper-
temperature
sinks, the
temperature DOE (at
the of
the the
analyses
For
temperature of
temperature bottom
fins
of heat
the
the were
heat heat of
of
heatsinks,the
source
performed
the
of the
source heat
DOE
heat heat (at
using the
analyses
source
(at source
thefinbottom
were
thickness,
(at
bottom(atthe of
performed
the the
fin
bottom
ofbottom
the heat
spacing,
using
of
heat the
of finheat
the thick
hea
3. Temperature sink) varied
contours
For fins between vs.
heat timesinks,80for
◦
°C
DOEeachand type100
analyses ◦
of°C, heat
were with sink.
performed 10 ◦
°C intervals,
using fin and
thickness, inlet fin air
spacing,velocity took the
sink)
putational
ched the varied
effort sink)
between
steady-state varied
(Figure 80
3) between
°C and
once,
condition. in 10080 °C,
most °C and
with
cases,
sink) varied100
10
the °C
°C, intervals,
temper- with
between inlet
10 80 velocity,
°C and
C intervals,
andinlet and100 airheat and source
velocity
C, inlet temperature
inlet
with velocity,
10 took
air Cvelocity
the andasheat
intervals, factors
took source
and the and temperature
inlet pressure
air drop
velocity as factors
and took heatand sink
the pressure dr
tions sink) sink)
varied
values 0.7 m/s, 2.1 sink) variedvaried
between between
between
80 °C
m/s and after and80 80
3.5 15 °C
100 °C
m/s and and
°C, 100
with100 °C, °C,
10 with
°Cwith 10 10
intervals, °C °C intervals,
intervals,
and inlet and and
air inlet inlet
velocity air air velocity
velocity
took took
2500 withtht
the took the
inlet velocity, and heat
temperature source temperature s as(at 20 ◦°C),Each
as
responses.
temperature factors leading
and
after factor15 sto
pressure asReynolds
was drop
responses. and
consideredEach numbers
heat sink
withfactor threewas from
levels considered
(Table
values 0.7 m/s,
condition. values 2.1 0.7m/sm/s, and
2.2. CFD 2.1
3.5 m/s
m/s and
Governing (at
values
values 20
3.5 °C),
m/s
0.7
values
0.7 m/s,
values
temperature
Equations leading
(at
m/s, 0.720
2.1
0.7
2.1
after °C),to
m/s
m/s, m/s,
m/s
15 Reynolds
s leading
and
2.1 2.1
and
as m/s 3.5
m/s
3.5
responses. to
and numbers
m/sand
m/s Reynolds
3.5
Each (at
3.5
(at m/s20
20
factorm/sfrom
°C),numbers
C),
(atwas (at 202500
leading
20
leading °C),
considered °C), from to
leading
toleading
with 2500
Reynolds
Reynolds to
three to numbers
Reynolds
Reynolds
levels numbers
(Table from
numbers
numbers
from 2500 from
2500 from2500 250
id (laminar-turbulent
Dynamics (CFD) consists of predicting (laminar-turbulent
fluid flow, heat,2) transition)
and and an L9 matrix to 12,500 was constructed.2)(veryand an turbulent
L9 matrix was flow). constructed.
(laminar-turbulent
transition) to
transition)
12,500 (veryto
(laminar-turbulent
2) 12,500
and
(laminar-turbulent turbulent
an L9
(laminar-turbulent (very
matrix
(laminar-turbulent flow).
turbulent
transition)
was
transition) constructed.to
transition) flow).
transition)12,500 to (very
to 12,500
12,500 turbulent
(very(very flow).
turbulent
turbulent flow).
flow).
d phenomena Computational For Fluid fins Dynamics
heat mathe- sinks, DOEto
(CFD) 12,500 (very
analyses
consists were
of turbulent
performed
predicting flow).
fluid using flow, finheat, thickness, and fin spacing,
For finsby solving
heat For finsnumerically
sinks, DOE
heat sinks,
analyses aDOEsetwereof
For
For
governing
analyses performed
fins
fins heat
For For
heatwere
fins sinks,
fins
sinks, using
performed
Table
heat heat DOE fin
2. Levels
sinks,
DOE sinks, thickness,
using
analyses
and
DOE
analyses factorsfin
DOE forfin
were
analyses
analyses
were thickness,
Table
DOE spacing,
performed
2.
matrix
Levels
were
performedwere fin
forand spacing,
using
finsfactors
performed heat sinks.
performed
using forfinDOE
using
fin thickness,
matrix for fins
using fin
thickness, fin fin
thickness, heat
thickness,
fin spacing,
sinks.
spacing,fin fin spacing,
spacing
analysis complements mass
testing transfer
and inlet
experimentation velocity,
and velocity,
related
Table 2. by
Levelsand
phenomena reducing
and heat factors source
by solving
for DOE temperature
matrix numerically
for fins heat as factors
sinks. aand set and of and governingpressure drop
mathe- and heat sink
inlet velocity, inletand velocity,
heat source
and heat
temperature
Levelsource
inlet
inlet temperature
as
inlet
velocity,
Fin inlet
Thicknessfactors
and
velocity,
velocity,
and (mm)and
heat as
heat
Level and factors
pressure
source
and heat
source
Fin Fin heat
Spacing and
Thicknessdrop
temperature
sourcesource
temperaturepressure
(mm)Each and
temperature
(mm) heat
temperature
Inlet drop
asas sink
factors
Fin factors
Velocity Spacing as as
(m/s) heat
factors
and
(mm)factors sink
pressure and
pressure
Heat
InletandSource drop
pressure
pressure
Velocitydrop andand
Temperature
(m/s) drop heat
dropheat and sink
and
Heat
(°C) sinkheat heat
Source sinksin
Tem
temperature after 15 s as responses. factor was considered with three levels (Table
uired for experimentation
temperature after 15 Level
temperature s matical
and
as after data
Fin
responses.
15equations.
acquisition.
Thickness
s as Each (mm)
responses.
1temperature
temperature
CFD
factor There
temperature
analysis
Fin
Each
was
after
1.5
temperature
after
acomplements
areconsidered
Spacing factor
15 15 s1num-
(mm)
aftersas
after
aswas15
Inlet
responses.
15sconsidered
with
responses. 2.0
as
s as
testing
Velocity
three
1.5 Each
responses.
responses.
Each
(m/s) and three
levels
with
factor Each
factor
experimentation
Heatconsidered
(Table
Eachwas
0.7was factor
Source(Table
levels
2.0
factor was
considered was
Temperature by reducing
with
considered
considered
with
(°C) levels (Table 2)
three
0.7three 80with
with three
levels three levels
(Table levels (Table
(Tabl80
oftware 1total
for effort and 2)cost
and an L9 matrix
required for was Oneconstructed.
2.0 experimentation 0.7and data acquisition. There are a2.1num-
2) andpackages
an L92)matrix available
and anwas L9 matrixapplication
constructed. was 1.5
2and in
an
constructed.
2) and
thermal
L9
2)2)
an matrix
and
L9 2.5design.
and anan
matrix was
L9L9 2 constructed.
matrix
was matrix was was
constructed. 3.5 2.5
constructed.
constructed. 2.1 3.5 80 90 90
ed on the finite volume method, 2ber of commercialANSYS 32.5 solversCFD 3.5 3.5packages
software
discretised 3 the available 5.0 3.5 2.1 for application 3.5 5.0in thermal 90 design. 3.5 One 100 100
3 3.5 Table 2. Levels and 5.0 factors for DOE3.5 matrix forfins finsheat heatsinks. sinks. 100
Table 2. Levels Table
and2.factors of them
Levels for
and DOE is ANSYS.
factors
matrixTable
for forDOE Based
2.finsLevels
matrix
heatonand the
sinks.
for finsfinite
factors heat for volume
DOE matrix
sinks. method, for ANSYS solvers discretised the
Table 2.Table 2.and
Table
Levels Levels
2. and
Levels
factors
For factors
and
for
pins DOE
heat for
factors DOE
for DOE
matrix
sinks, the matrix
formatrix
fins for
heat
arrangement
For pins fins
for heat
fins
sinks.
heat
factor heat
sinks, sinks.
sinks.
(in-line
the arrangement
or staggered)factor
was added
(in-linetoorcom-
staggered) w
Level
Level Fin
Fin Fin
Thickness
Thickness
(mm)
(mm)
FinForSpacing
pins heat
Fin Spacing
(mm)
sinks,
pose an(mm)
Inletmatrix.
the DOE
L18 Velocity
arrangement factor
Level
Inletpose (m/s)
(in-line
and
an
VelocityL18
factors
DOE
(m/s)
Heat
or staggered)
are
matrix.
shownSource
was
Level Temperature
added
in Source
Heat Table
and to com-
factors
3. Temperature
are shown(°C)
◦ C)
(in Table 3.
sn(mm)
Thickness
FinLevel
(mm)
Spacing (mm) Spacing
Inlet
(mm)
Velocity Inlet
(m/s)
Velocity Heat
(m/s) Source Heat
Temperature
Source Temperature
(°C) (°C)
1 Level Level
Fin Fin
ThicknessThickness
Fin
1.5 Thickness
(mm) (mm)
(mm)
Fin
pose Fin
Fin
anSpacing
L18 DOE
2.0 Spacing
Spacing
(mm)
matrix. (mm)
(mm)
Inlet
Level Inlet
Inlet
andVelocity
factors Velocity
0.7 areVelocity
(m/s)
shown in(m/s)
(m/s)
Heat
Table 3. Heat
Heat
Source Source
80 Temperature
Source
Temperature (°C) (°C)
Temperature (°C)
1.5 1 2.0 11 2.0 1.5 0.7
1.51.5 0.7 2.02.02.0 80 80
0.7
0.70.7 80
12
2
1.5
2.5 2.0
3.5 0.7
2.1 90 90 8080
80
2.5 233 3.5 2 2 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
2.1 2.1 3.5 3.53.53.5 90 2.1 2.1
90
2.1
Temperature 3.53.5 2.5
of heat sink.3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 3.5
2.1 100100 9090
90
3.5 contours
3 5.0 vs. time for
3 3 5.0each
3.5
type 3.5
3.53.5 5.0 5.05.0 100 3.5 100
3.53.5 100 100100
. time for each type of heat sink.
Governing Forpins
pinsheat
heatsinks,
sinks,thethearrangement
arrangementfactor factor(in-line
(in-lineororstaggered)
staggered)waswasadded
addedtotocom- com-
For Equations
pins heatFor
sinks,
pinsthe
heatarrangement For
sinks, the arrangement
factor
For pins (in-line
For
For
heatfactor
pinsorheat
pins staggered)
(in-line
heat
sinks, sinks,
the or
sinks,thewas
staggered)
the
arrangement added
arrangement to
was
arrangement
factor com-
added
factor
factor
(in-line to
or com-oror
(in-line
(in-line staggered)
staggered)staggered)
was was
added wasadded
toaddedtoto
com- com-
com
posean
pose anL18
L18DOE DOEmatrix.
matrix.Level
Leveland andfactors
factorsare
areshown
shownininTableTable3.3.
mputational
pose an L18Fluid
pose
DOEDynamics
anmatrix.
L18 DOE (CFD)
Level consists
matrix.
and factors
Levelanof
are
andpredicting
pose shown
posefactors
an L18
an in
L18 fluid
are
Table
DOE shown
DOE flow,
3.
matrix. heat,
in and
matrix. Table
Level and
Level3.
and
andfactors
factorsare shown
are in3.
Table 3. 3.
pose L18 DOE matrix. Level factors are shown inshown
Table in Table
amicsand
nsfer (CFD) consists
related of predicting
phenomena fluid numerically
by solving flow, heat, and a set of governing mathe-
Table 3. Levels and factors for DOE matrix for pins heat sinks.
omena by CFD
equations. solving numerically
analysis a set oftesting
complements governingand mathe-
experimentation by reducing
is complements
ort Leveltesting
and cost required for
Pinand experimentation
experimentation
Diameter (mm) Pins by
and datareducing
Spacingacquisition.
(mm) There are a num-
Inlet Velocity(m/s) Heat Source Temperature (◦ C) Arrangement
r experimentation
mmercial and data
CFD1software acquisition.
packages
1.5 available There are
2.0a num-in thermal design.
for application 0.7 One 80 In-line (1)
eispackages 2
ANSYS. available
Based onfor 2.5 volume
application
the finite in thermal
method, 3.5
design.
ANSYS 2.1
Onesolvers discretised the 90 Staggered (2)
3 3.5 5.0 3.5 100 -
he finite volume method, ANSYS solvers discretised the
Level Pin Diameter (mm) Pins Spacing (mm) Inlet Velocity(m/s) Heat Source Temperature (°C) Arrangem
Level Pin Diameter (mm) Pins Spacing (mm) Inlet Velocity(m/s) Heat Source Temperature (°C) Arrangement
1 1.5 2.0 0.7 80 In-line
1 1.5 2.0 0.7 80 In-line (1)
2 2.5 3.5 2.1 90 Staggere
2 2.5
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 3
3.5 2.1 90 Staggered (2)7 of 19
3.5 5.0 3.5 100 -
3 3.5 5.0 3.5 100 -
Based on DOE results, the shape of fins or pins was varied according to some
Based on on
Based DOE DOEresults, thethe
results, shape
shapeofof
fins ororpins
fins pinswas
wasvaried
variedaccording
accordingtotosome
some previ-
previous
ous studies that showed good results [32,38–46,70] considering the same bounda
ousstudies
studiesthat
that showed good results [32,38–46,70] considering the same boundary
showed good results [32,38–46,70] considering the same boundary parameters. pa-
rameters. For fins heat sinks (Figure 4), the same number of fins was considered. Fo
rameters.
For finsFor fins
heat heat(Figure
sinks sinks (Figure 4), thenumber
4), the same same number of fins
of fins was was considered.
considered. For pinsFor pins
heat sinks
heat sinks (Figure 5), the same hydraulic diameter and pin spacing was maintained
heat sinks (Figure
(Figure 5), the
5), the same same hydraulic
hydraulic diameter diameter
and pinand pin spacing
spacing was maintained.
was maintained.
Figure 4. DifferentFigure 4. Different

fins heat fins heat sink models.
sink models.
Figure 4. Different fins heat sink models.
Figure 5. Different pins shapes under

Figure study. pins shapes under study.
5. Different
InFigure 5. Different
order to pinsadvantages
confirm the shapes under
of study.
additive manufacturing for thermal management
components, lattice sinks with X, Hexagon, and Snow Flake (Figure 6) unit cells were
studied. Cell size and thickness were fixed as well as boundary conditions.
In order to confirm the advantages of additive manufacturing for thermal manage-

In order
ment to confirm
components, thesinks
lattice advantages
with X, of additiveand
Hexagon, manufacturing for thermal
Snow Flake (Figure 6) unitmanage-
cells were
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 ment components,
studied. Cell sizelattice sinks withwere
and thickness X, Hexagon, and Snow
fixed as well Flake (Figure
as boundary 6) unit cells were
conditions. 8 of 19
studied. Cell size and thickness were fixed as well as boundary conditions.
Figure 6. Different lattice heat sinks models.

Figure 6. Different lattice heat sinks models.
3. Results
Figure 6. Differentand Discussion
lattice heat sinks models.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Fins Heat Sinks
3.1. Finsand
3. Results HeatDiscussion
Sinks
Using
3.1. FinsUsing
Heat analysis
analysis
Sinks of variance
of variance (ANOVA),(ANOVA),
the effectstheof effects
variablesofand
variables and their interactions on
their interactions
each
onUsingresponse
each response
analysis werewere determined.
determined.
of variance (ANOVA), For
For fins
theheat fins heat
sinks,
effects sinks,
ofitvariables
was found it
and was
that, found
either
their for athat,
lowereither for a lower
interactions
heat
on heat sink temperature
sink temperature
each response (Figure
were determined. 7,
(Figure top) or for
7, top)
For fins a lower
or for
heat sinks, pressure
a lower
it was drop (Figure
foundpressure 7,
that, eitherdrop bottom), the
(Figure
for a lower 7, bottom), the
thickness
heat sink of the fins (Figure
temperature should be 7, as small
top) or as apossible.
for lower The same
pressure was(Figure
drop not true7,for the spacing.
bottom), the
thickness of the fins should be as small as possible. The same was not true for the spacing.
On the of
thickness one
thehand,
fins if it is as
should small as possible, it increases thewas
density of the fins
the and there-
On
fore the one
causes hand,
better if itbeisas
thermal assmall
small
efficiency.
as as
possible.
On the
The same
possible,
other hand, the
not true
it increases the for
smaller density
the
spacing.
of the
spacing, the fins and therefore
On the one hand, if it is as small as possible, it increases the density of the fins and there-
causes better thermal efficiency. On the other hand,
fore causes better thermal efficiency. On the other hand, the smaller the spacing, the is
higher pressure drops. In agreement between both parameters, andthe smaller
since the the
influence spacing, the higher
higher pressure drops. In agreement between both parameters, and since the influence is influence is much
pressure
much drops.
higher for the In agreement
pressure drop, between
the bigger both
fins parameters,
spacing (5 mm) and
was since
considered thefor
further
higher
much studies
forforthe
higher related
the to thedrop,
pressure
pressure shape
drop, ofthe
the the fins
bigger
bigger (Figure
fins fins4).spacing
spacing (5 mm) (5was mm) was considered
considered for for further
further studies
studies relatedtotothe
related the shape
shape ofof
the finsfins
the (Figure 4).
(Figure 4).
Figure 7. Main
Figure 7. effects
Main for heat sink
effects for temperature (top) and pressure
heat sink temperature drop
(top) (bottom)
and for fins
pressure heat(bottom)
drop sinks. for fins heat sinks.
Regarding boundary conditions, as expected, the effect of inlet velocity on pressure

drop and heat source temperature on heat sink temperature after 15 s was linear. How-
ever, an inlet velocity of 2.11 m/s (Re = 7500) caused a minimum heat sink temperature
and a heat source temperature of 90 °C caused a minimum pressure drop. These conclu-
sions are related with the geometric parameters (number of fins and fins spacing), accord-
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 9 of 19
Regarding boundary conditions, as expected, the effect of inlet velocity on pressure

drop and heat source temperature on heat sink temperature after 15 s was linear. However,
an inlet velocity of 2.11 m/s (Re = 7500) caused a minimum heat sink temperature and a
heat source temperature of 90 ◦ C caused a minimum pressure drop. These conclusions
are related with the geometric parameters (number of fins and fins spacing), according to
Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
Table 4. Correlation between heat sink temperature and geometrical parameters.
Number of Heat Source Velocity HS Temperature

Simulation
Fins Temperature (◦ C) (m/s) after 15 s (◦ C)
#1 14 80 0.7 52.2
#2 6 80 2.11 56.4
#3 8 80 3.51 54.1
#4 7 90 0.7 61.9
#5 11 90 2.11 57.7
#6 8 90 3.51 60.5
#7 7 100 0.7 68.6
#8 10 100 2.11 63.5
#9 9 100 3.51 65.3
Table 5. Correlation between pressure drop and DOE factors.
Heat Source Pressure Drop

Simulation Spacing (mm) Velocity (m/s)
Temperature (◦ C) (Pa)
#1 2 80 0.7 13.8
#2 3.5 90 0.7 10.5
#3 5 100 0.7 4.4
#4 5 80 2.11 40.3
#5 2 90 2.11 108.4
#6 3.5 100 2.11 22.3
#7 3.5 80 3.51 105.1
#8 5 90 3.51 32.6
#9 2 100 3.51 380.1
As boundary conditions, an inlet velocity of 2.11 m/s and a heat source temperature
of 90 ◦ C were considered for further studies with fins.
Fins Shape
In all fins heat sinks variants (Figure 4), the same number of fins (8) and boundary
parameters were considered. Results for each model are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Temperature and pressure drop for each fin heat sink model.
Total Area Front Area Volume HS Temperature Pressure Drop

Model
(cm2 ) (cm2 ) (cm3 ) after 15 sec (◦ C) (Pa)
A 408.9 7.7 38.6 60.6 13.4
B 260.7 7.7 27.0 40.0 30.6
C 389.4 7.7 34.2 52.4 25.1
D 397.3 20.2 35.1 53.9 52.6
E 414.5 7.7 38.6 55.2 22.4
F 682.1 7.7 38.6 52.0 31.5
G 682.1 7.7 38.6 54.5 24.5
It was found that the incorporation of fillets or chamfers did not bring any advantage,
contrarily to all design variations shown in Figure 4 and Table 6. Fins with trapezoidal and
inverted trapezoidal shape (Figure 4B) were considered, the latter being an advantageous
E 414.5 7.7 38.6 55.2 22.4
F 682.1 7.7 38.6 52.0 31.5
G 682.1 7.7 38.6 54.5 24.5
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 It was found that the incorporation of fillets or chamfers did not bring any advantage,
10 of 19
contrarily to all design variations shown in Figure 4 and Table 6. Fins with trapezoidal
and inverted trapezoidal shape (Figure 4B) were considered, the latter being an advanta-
geous
optionoption
due todue to itspart
its wide wide part exposed
exposed to ambient
to ambient air [27].air [27]. Moreover,
Moreover, thethe
the higher higher the
inverted
inverted trapezoid angle, the better the performance
trapezoid angle, the better the performance (Figure 8). (Figure 8).
ModelBBvariants.
Figure8.8.Model
Figure variants.
Theincorporation
The incorporationofofholes
holesin in
thethe
finsfins (model
(model C) has
C) has beenbeen studied
studied by other
by other au-
authors
thors [30,31] and both agreed that it was an advantageous approach due
[30,31] and both agreed that it was an advantageous approach due to the higher heat to the higher
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
heat transfer coefficient. Furthermore, for larger 11 of 19
transfer coefficient. Furthermore, for larger holesholes diameter,
diameter, maintaining
maintaining holes
holes spacing
spacing (5
(5 mm) resulted in better heat sink performance
mm) resulted in better heat sink performance (Figure 9). (Figure 9).
Figure 9.
Figure Model C
9. Model C variants.
variants.
Regarding model E, the lower the spacing between the fins at the bottom, keeping
Regarding model E, the lower the spacing between the fins at the bottom, keeping
the top spacing equal to 5 mm, the better the heat sink performance (Figure 10, I and II).
the top spacing equal to 5 mm, the better the heat sink performance (Figure 10, I and II).
This happens because airflow towards radial fins tends to quicken as the gap between two
consecutive fins reduces (EI to EII) [71]. These advantages of model E fins have also been
confirmed experimentally by other authors [71,72]. However, the incorporation of more
confirmed experimentally by other authors [71,72]. However, the incorporation of more
material in the heat sink base (Figure 10, III), close to the fins, did not bring any advantage.
With this, the properties of models B, C, and E have been combined and, among the
studied, the heat sink design with the best performance was attained (Figure 11). Following
some design rules for additive manufacturing, elliptical holes were considered instead of
circular ones.
Regarding confirmed
model E,experimentally by otherbetween
the lower the spacing authors [71,72].
the finsHowever, the incorporation
at the bottom, keeping of m
material in the heat sink base (Figure 10, III), close to the fins, did not
the top spacing equal to 5 mm, the better the heat sink performance (Figure 10, I and II). bring any advant
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 confirmed experimentally by other authors [71,72]. However, the incorporation of11more of 19
Figure 10. Model E variants.
With this, the properties of models B, C, and E have been combined and, among
studied, the heat sink design with the best performance was attained (Figure 11). Fol
ing
Figure 10. Model some design rules for additive manufacturing, elliptical holes were considered ins
E variants.
Figure 10. Model
ofEcircular
variants.ones.
With this, the properties of models B, C, and E have been combined and, among the
studied, the heat sink design with the best performance was attained (Figure 11). Follow-
ing some design rules for additive manufacturing, elliptical holes were considered instead
of circular ones.
Figure 11. Best fin heat sink (among those studied).

Figure 11. Best fin heat sink (among those studied).
3.2.
3.2. Pins
Pins Heat
Heat Sinks
Sinks
For
For pins heat
heat sinks,
sinks,thethearrangement
arrangementfactor
factor was
was added:
added: in-line
in-line or staggered
or staggered pins pins
(Fig-
(Figure 12). For staggered pins, there are two possible orientations (1 and
ure 12). For staggered pins, there are two possible orientations (1 and 2). From orientation 2). From
orientation 1 to orientation
1 to orientation 2, heat sink2,sink
heat sink temperature
temperature increased increased by a maximum of 1.4% but
Figure 11. Best fin heat (among those studied).by a maximum of 1.4% but pressure
pressure
drop decreased by about 25%. Although the heat sinkheat
drop decreased by about 25%. Although the sink temperature
temperature after 15 safter
is the15most
s is
the most pertinent response parameter, the decrease in pressure drop
pertinent response parameter, the decrease in pressure drop was much higher, causing a was much higher,
causing a better performance
better performance for orientationfor orientation
2 (Figure212c).
(Figure
For 12c). For thisthe
this reason, reason, the staggered
staggered arrange-
arrangement was considered with
ment was considered with orientation 2. orientation 2.
Figure 12. Results for the possible pin heat sinks arrangements and orientations.
Figure 12. Results for the possible pin heat sinks arrangements and orientations.
Taking this into account, it was found that, either for a lower heat sink temperature or
Takingpressure
for a lower this intodrop,
account, it was found
the staggered that, either
arrangement (2) for a lower
is more heat sink temperature
advantageous (Figure 13).
or for a lower pressure drop, the staggered arrangement (2) is more advantageous
Regarding pins diameter, for a lower heat sink temperature (Figure 13, top), it should (Figure
be as
13). Regarding
small pins
as possible. Thediameter,
same was fornot
a lower heat
true for thesink temperature
pressure (Figure
drop (Figure 13,13, top), it should
bottom), where
be as is
there small as possible.
an ideal diameter Theof same
2.5 mm.wasInnot true for the
agreement pressure
between drop
both (Figure 13,
parameters, andbottom),
since
where there is an ideal diameter of 2.5 mm. In agreement between both parameters, and
since the heat sink temperature is the most relevant response parameter and the influence
is more accentuated, the lower pins diameter (1.5 mm) will be considered for further stud-
ies related to the shape of the pins. With a smaller diameter, there is also a smaller building
volume to be created by additive manufacturing.
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 12 of 19
the heat sink temperature is the most relevant response parameter and the influence is
more accentuated, the lower pins diameter (1.5 mm) will be considered for further studies
related to the shape of the pins. With a smaller diameter, there is also a smaller building
volume to be created by additive manufacturing.
Figure 13.
Figure Main effects
13. Main effects for
for heat
heatsink
sinktemperature
temperature(top)
(top)and
andpressure
pressuredrop (bottom)
drop forfor
(bottom) pins heat
pins sinks.
heat
sinks.
Respecting pins spacing, if, on the one hand, there was no influence on the heat sink
temperature, on the other hand, the influence on the pressure drop is quite noticeable. For
Pins Shape
this reason, the upper spacing (5 mm) was considered the best choice. These conclusions
aboutIngeometric
all pins shapes studies
parameters are(Figure 5), the same
in agreement hydraulic
with the fin heatdiameter
sinks. (1.5 mm) and pin
spacing
As explained for fins heat sinks, a temperature of 90 C caused aResults
(5 mm) were maintained, as well as boundary parameters.
◦ are shown
lower pressure dropin
Table 8.
(almost irrelevant) also due to some geometrical parameters (pins spacing and heat sink
front area) given in Table 7. For this reason, this temperature was selected for further studies
Table
with8.pins.
Temperature
Regardingandthe
pressure drop for each
inlet velocity, pin heat sink
its influence wasmodel.
linear and as expected. Therefore,
a velocity of 3.51 m/s was considered because it resulted in a lower heat sink temperature. Pressure
Model Nr of Pins Total Area (cm2) Front Area (cm2) Volume (cm3) HS Temperature after 15 s (°C)
Table 7. Correlation between pressure drop and geometrical parameters for an inlet air velocity of 3.51 m/s. Drop (Pa)
H 60 162.7 7.7 16.1 36.0 116.0
IArrangement52 Simulation
165.8 Spacing (mm)
6.4 Front Area
16.2(mm )
2 Heat Source Temperature
38.4 (◦ C) Pressure Drop
57.2(Pa)
J 53 #1
168.4 3.5 9.6 13.4
16.3 80
38.0 289.7
203.8
In line #2 5 10.2 90 167.1
K 52 178.1
#3 2 8.1 16.7
16.6 39.1
100 60.4
776.9
L 52 178.1
#4 3.5 8.1 16.7
11.4 42.9
80 95.1
170.7
MStaggered46 #5
159.6 5
9.0 7.7
16.0 90
50.4 116.0
96.9
#6 2 11.8 100 441.1
N 46 159.6 9.0 16.0 44.1 91.5
O 52 185.4 6.6 16.9 49.3 56.2
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 13 of 19
Pins Shape
In all pins shapes studies (Figure 5), the same hydraulic diameter (1.5 mm) and pin
spacing (5 mm) were maintained, as well as boundary parameters. Results are shown
in Table 8.
Table 8. Temperature and pressure drop for each pin heat sink model.
Model Nr of Pins Total Area (cm2 ) Front Area (cm2 ) Volume (cm3 ) HS Temperature after 15 s (◦ C) Pressure Drop (Pa)
H 60 162.7 7.7 16.1 36.0 116.0
I 52 165.8 6.4 16.2 38.4 57.2
J 53 168.4 9.6 16.3 38.0 203.8
K 52 178.1 8.1 16.7 39.1 60.4
L 52 178.1 8.1 16.7 42.9 95.1
M 2021, 14, x 46
Materials 159.6
FOR PEER REVIEW 9.0 16.0 50.4 96.9 14 of 19
N 46 159.6 9.0 16.0 44.1 91.5
O 52 185.4 6.6 16.9 49.3 56.2
Conventional
Conventionalheat
heatsinks,
sinks,with
withcircular pins,
circular continue
pins, to be
continue to the bestbest
be the choice among
choice the
among
many options
the many of pin
options ofshapes, eveneven
pin shapes, though the pressure
though drop drop
the pressure is high. For these
is high. pins, con-
For these pins,
sidering drawing
considering outwards
drawing (Figure
outwards 14), only
(Figure 14), possible to be produced
only possible by additive
to be produced manu-
by additive
facturing, was not
manufacturing, wasadvantageous—a
not advantageous—ahigherhigher
temperature and aand
temperature higher-pressure drop drop
a higher-pressure was
obtained.
was obtained.
Figure14.
Figure Comparisonbetween
14.Comparison betweencircular
circularpins
pins(A)
(A)and
andcircular
circular pins
pins outwards
outwards (A1).
(A1).
Figure 15 shows pins heat sinks with 1 mm frontal elliptical holes (H2) and side
Figure 15 shows pins heat sinks with 1 mm frontal elliptical holes (H2) and side el-
elliptical holes (H3) as well as a radial pins heat sink also with frontal elliptical holes (H4),
liptical holes (H3) as well as a radial pins heat sink also with frontal elliptical holes (H4),
spaced 5 mm apart. In all cases, holes were advantageous and the results were quite similar.
spaced 5 mm apart. In all cases, holes were advantageous and the results were quite sim-
For the same heat sink temperature obtained, the one with the lowest pressure drop was
ilar. For the same heat sink temperature obtained, the one with the lowest pressure drop
considered as the best option for pins heat sinks (H2).
was considered as the best option for pins heat sinks (H2).
For the case of ellipse pins (the second-best pins shape), differences were observed
between maintaining the spacing (Model I) or maintaining the number of pins (Model I1),
concerning the reference heat sink (Model H). According to Table 9, there were no significant
differences, i.e., opting for ellipse pins, the choice should be Model I once it has a smaller
building volume.
Model Nr of Pins Total Area (cm2 ) Front Area (cm2 ) Volume (cm3 ) HS Temperature after 15 s (◦ C) Pressure Drop (Pa)
H 60 162.7 7.7 16.1 36.0 116.0
I 52 165.8 6.4 16.2 38.4 57.2
I1 60 186.1 6.4 16.9 38.3 59.1
J 53 168.4 9.6 16.3 38.0 203.8
Figure 15 shows pins heat sinks with 1 mm frontal elliptical holes (H2) and side el-
liptical holes (H3) as well as a radial pins heat sink also with frontal elliptical holes (H4),
spaced 5 mm apart. In all cases, holes were advantageous and the results were quite sim-
ilar. For the same heat sink temperature obtained, the one with the lowest pressure drop
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 14 of 19
was considered as the best option for pins heat sinks (H2).
Pressure Drop
Model Nr of Pins Total Area (cm2) Front Area (cm2) Volume (cm3) HS Temperature after 15 s (°C)
(Pa)
H 60 162.7 7.7 16.1 36.0 116.0
I 52 165.8 6.4 16.2 38.4 57.2
I1 60 186.1 6.4 sinks with frontal
Pinsheat
heat 16.9(H2) and side (H3) holes
38.3
and radial 59.1
Figure15.
Figure 15.Pins sinks with frontal (H2) and side (H3) holes and radial pins
pins heat
heat sink
sinkwith
withfrontal
J 53 168.4
holes (H4).
frontal holes (H4).
9.6 16.3 38.0 203.8
Therefore,
For the case the best option
of ellipse contemplated
pins (the second-bestcircular
pins shape),in
pins in combination
combination
differences with
with
were frontal
frontal
observed
holes in their structure (Figure
(Figure 16).
16).
between maintaining the spacing (Model I) or maintaining the number of pins (Model I1),
concerning the reference heat sink (Model H). According to Table 9, there were no signif-
icant differences, i.e., opting for ellipse pins, the choice should be Model I once it has a
smaller building volume.
Figure 16. Best pin heat sink (among those studied).

Figure 16. Best pin heat sink (among those studied).
Lattice sinks with X, Hexagon, and Snow Flake (Figure 6) unit cells were studied. Cell
Lattice
size and sinks with
thickness wereX,fixed
Hexagon,
at 15and
× 15Snow
× 15Flake
mm3(Figure
and 1.56)mm,
unitrespectively,
cells were studied.
as wellCell
as
size and thickness were fixed at 15 × 15 × 15 mm 3 and
◦ 1.5 mm, respectively, as
boundary conditions (heat source temperature of 90 C and air inlet velocity of 3.5 m/s). well as
boundary conditions (heat source
The results are shown in Table 10. temperature of 90 °C and air inlet velocity of 3.5 m/s).
The results are shown in Table 10.
Model Total Area (cm2 ) Front Area (cm2 ) Volume (cm3 ) HS Temperature after 15 s (◦ C) Pressure Drop (Pa)
Model
X-type Total Area (cm2) Front Area31.3
187.9 (cm2) Volume (cm 16.8) HS Temperature after
3
39.2 15 s (°C) Pressure108.1
Drop (Pa)
Hexagon
X-type 243.7
187.9 31.3 41.1 16.8 19.2 39.2 26.7 161.2
108.1
Snow Flake 283.9 41.0 20.6 33.7 137.2
Hexagon 243.7 41.1 19.2 26.7 161.2
Snow Flake 283.9 41.0 20.6 33.7 137.2
Among the three models studied, the heat sink with hexagon unit cell showed the
lowest temperature, despite the higher pressure drop. This heat sink has the middle total
Among the three models studied, the heat sink with hexagon unit cell showed the
area to volume ratio. The advantages of this unit cell in thermal management applications
lowest temperature, despite the higher pressure drop. This heat sink has the middle total
were also confirmed by Gu et al. [73].
wereFins
3.4. alsovs.confirmed by GuHeat
Pins vs. Lattice et al.Sink
[73].
In this subchapter, it is intended to directly compare the best fins, pins, and blades
3.4. Fins vs. Pins vs. Lattice Heat Sink
heat sinks (Figure 17), under the same geometric and boundary parameters.
In this subchapter, it is intended to directly compare the best fins, pins, and blades
were also confirmed by Gu et al. [73].
3.4. Fins vs. Pins vs. Lattice Heat Sink

Materials 2021, 14, 2041 In this subchapter, it is intended to directly compare the best fins, pins, and blades
15 of 19
Figure
Figure17.
17.Fins,
Fins,pins,
pins,and
andlattice
latticeheat
heatsinks,
sinks,respectively.
respectively.
Table 11 shows that, under forced convection environments, better results were ob-
tained for the lattice heat sink with hexagon unit cell. The pressure drop increased more
than double for the same inlet velocity and Reynolds number, a consequence of the high
frontal area. Even so, a decrease of about 28% and 9% in heat sink temperature was achieve,
comparing with the best fins and pins heat sink, respectively. As inlet velocity and heat
source temperature are kept constant during the experiments, the best heat sink is the one
whose temperature is minimal, which, according to Equation (3), translates into lower
thermal resistance.
Table 11. Direct comparison between heat sinks with fins, pins, and blades (Re = 12,500).
Model Total Are (cm2 ) Front Area (cm2 ) Volume (cm3 ) Total Area to Volume Ratio HS Temperature after 15 s (◦ C) Pressure Drop (Pa)
Fins 255.9 7.7 25.1 10.2 36.9 50.2
Pins 173.0 7.3 15.6 11.1 29.4 61.1
Lattice 243.7 41.1 19.2 12.7 26.7 161.2
Based on this study, there is a direct correlation between the total area to volume ratio
and the heat sink performance. The lattice heat sink, the heat sink with the highest area to
volume ratio and only possible to be produced by additive manufacturing, was considered
the best option among the studied.
4. Conclusions
The thermal performance of heat sinks design under forced convection, varying
geometric and boundary parameters (inlet velocity and heat source temperature), was
conducted by computational fluid dynamics simulation with ANSYS Fluent.
Considering heat sinks with fins configuration, it was found out that the thickness of
the fins should be as thin as possible and widely spaced. The optimal design is obtained by
an agreement between both parameters. However, since the spacing has a greater impact
on the pressure drop, the bigger fins spacing (5 mm) was considered for studies related to
the shape of the fins. For this last iteration on the shape configuration, all geometric and
boundary parameters were kept constant, varying only in heat sinks design. It was found
that radial fins designed with an inverted trapezoidal shape and with holes have great
advantages and the design (Figure 11) was the one with better performance.
A similar study was done for pins heat sinks. It was found that the best solution
would be to consider a pin diameter of 1.5 mm with a spacing of 5 mm and with a staggered
arrangement. By varying the shape of the pins, it was also found that the incorporation of
holes in circular pins was beneficial for thermal performance.
Taking advantage of additive manufacturing freedom of design, three different lattice
structures with the same cell size (15 × 15 × 15mm3 ) and thickness of 1.5 mm but different
cell topology were compared. Among X, Hexagon, and Snow Flake unit cells, it was found
that the Hexagon unit cell exhibited the best performance.
Through a direct comparison of the thermal efficiency of three heat sinks (the best fins,
pins and lattice heat sinks), under the same boundary conditions, it was concluded that,
under forced convection environments, a lattice heat sink with a hexagon unit cell is the
optimal choice. These results validated how advantageous additive manufacturing can
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 16 of 19
be for components that require thermal management, such as electronic devices. Even so,
more studies should be treated to reduce pressure drop and optimize the lattice heat sink
in terms of cell size and thickness.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, software, formal analysis, investigation,

resources,
5 of 19
writing—original draft preparation, E.C.S.; writing—review and editing, supervision,
Á.M.S. and A.J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), for
financial support under the PhD scholarship SFRH/BD/144590/2019 and by European Structural
and Investment Funds in the FEDER component, through the Operational Competitiveness and
Internationalization Programme (COMPETE 2020) [Project No. 039334; Funding Reference: POCI-01-
0247-FEDER-039334]. 6 of 19
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

5 of 19
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
control volumes in which general conservation equations for
Data(4))
ntum (Equation (3)) and energy (Equation Availability Statement:
are solved [67]. Not applicable.
∇ ∙ (𝜌𝑢⃗) = 0 Conflicts of Interest: The

(2) authors declare no conflict of interest.
(𝑢⃗ ∙ ∇)(𝜌𝑢⃗) = ∇P + ∇ ∙ (μ∇𝑢⃗) Nomenclature (3)
𝑢⃗ ∙ ∇ 𝜌𝐶 𝑇 = ∇ ∙ (𝑘∇𝑇 ) (4)
q Heat Flux Density (W·m2 )
fluid density and viscosity and 𝑢⃗ is the velocity
ρ air density ·m−e )
(kgThe
vector.
gions [68] can be written as: ∂T
∂n thermal gradient in direction n (K·m−1 )
sidered at a room t Thetime (s)

𝑘 ∇ 𝑇temperature
=0 of 20 °C. (5)
A heat transfer area (m2 )
et boundary and the wind tunnel wall → consid-
with
nditions the presumption that radiation
(heat source temperature and heatu transfer
inlet is negligible.
airvelocity vector (m/s)
n viscous model used in this study is aP semi-empirical
air pressuremodel(Pa)
h specific case. −1
quations
sed for the turbulence
conservation kinetic energy
equations (Equations
R (Ϗ) and its dissipa- (K·W )
(4)–(6))
thermal resistance
the following transport equations: T f fluid temperature (K)
,rewhen changes
2. Lattice heatinsink
solution
mesh.variables from µ oneair viscosity (kg·m−1 ·s−1 )
al response 𝜕 less𝜇than 𝜕Ϗ10 × 10−6). As the Cp mostSpecific Heat Capacity (J·kg−1 ·K−1 )
Ϗ𝑢 )= 𝜇 + + 𝐺 Ϗ + 𝐺 − 𝜌𝜀 − 𝑌 + 𝑆Ϗ (6)
nitial 𝜕𝑥
l for industrial
values, the 𝜎Ϗsystem
𝜕𝑥 wasstandard
applications, considered Ϗ -Epsi-
at aturbulence kinetic energy
room temperature ·kg)
of (J20 °C. The
was
nt conditionselected. was The pressure-velocity
used for the outlet ∆T
coupling
boundary difference
and the between
wind the
tunnel minimum
wall temperature of the HS and the fluid temperature
consid-
[64]𝜕 and the𝜇 Least 𝜕𝜀 Squares𝜀Cell Based gradientsat𝜀the inlet (K)
= batic. The 𝜇 +remaining+boundary 𝐶 (𝐺 +conditions
𝐶 𝐺 )−𝐶 + 𝑆 temperature
(heat source (7) and inlet air
heme 𝜕𝑥 [65]. 𝜎 𝜕𝑥 𝑘 Qheat total 𝑘 heat applied at the base of the HS (W)
were established according to each specific case.
d h15 s onconvective heat transfer coefficient (W·m−2 ·K−1 )
ngitscompute
representstemperature
the werethe
generation
solution, reported afterconservation
of turbulence
discretised kinetic energy due to(Equations (4)–(6))
equations
thermal conductivity (W·m−1 ·K−1 )
perature
d, Giteratively sensor
b is the generation
until was located
convergence, where,
of turbulence as kgeneral
i.e.,kinetic
when energy
changes due
in to buoy-variables
solution
Ts (K) from one
imum
to the [66].
ntribution nextofConsidering
the negligible
are fluctuatinga time step size
dilatation
(residual in
responseoneHS less
surface temperature
ofcompressible than turbu-
10 × 10−6). As the most
Ti inlet air temperature (K)
esed
ion step,
rate,theC15 s were
1ε, C2ε and
found
C3ε aretoconstants,
be a good for σbalance
Ϗ and σ ε are thePrandtl
turbu-number
engineering turbulence model industrial applications,
turbulent standard for Ϗ -Epsi-
fort
usand (Figure
model 3) once, in
ε, respectively.
(Equations Ϗ
most
S(6)andand cases,
S ε are
(7)) the
was temper-
user-defined
selected.
σε source
The terms.
pressure-velocity
turbulent Prandtl numbers for coupling
ε
es that
eved the flow
through theisSIMPLE
fully turbulent,
scheme and [64] the
andeffects
Acronyms
the Leastof molecular
Squares Cell Based gradients
ose as the spatial discretization schemeCFD
69]. [65]. Computational Fluid Dynamics
sure drop across the heat sink and its temperature DOE Design wereof experiments
reported after 15 s on
HS Heat sink
ctive sensors (Figure 1). The temperature sensor was located where, as general
heat sink temperature
of experiments (DOE)was wasthe usedminimum
to design [66].
theConsidering
sets of experi- a time step size of one
References
ith 10
ins and maximum
pins heatiterations per time
sinks, in order step, the 15
to optimize thesmain
were geomet-
found to be a good balance
1. Dede, E.M.; Joshi, S.N.; Zhou, F. Topology Optimization, Additive Layer Manufacturing, and Experimental Testing of an
good results and computational
ameter/thickness and pins/fins effort (Figure 3) once, in most cases, the temper-
spacing).
Air-Cooled Heat Sink. J. Mech. Des. Trans. ASME 2015, 137, 11. [CrossRef]
ched
ns, thethe steady-state
temperature of condition.
the heat source (at the bottomHandbook,
of the heat
2. Brindley, K. Newnes Electronics Assembly 1st ed.; Heinemann Newnes: Manchester, UK, 1990; ISBN 0 434 90203 9.
and 100 °C, 3. with 10 °CK.R.;
Fowler, intervals,
Silver, andC.L. inlet air velocity
Developing took theEmbedded Systems and Products: Methods, Techniques, Tools, Processes, and
and Managing
3.5 m/s (at 20 °C), leading
Teamwork, 1st ed.;to Reynolds
Fowler, numbers
K., Ed.; Newnes:from Boston,2500MA, USA, 2014; ISBN 9780124058637.
n) to 12,500 4. (very turbulent
Wilson, flow).
P. The Circuit Designer’s Companion, 4th ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 9780081017647.
OE analyses 5. were Otake, S.; Tateishi,using
performed Y.; Gohara, H.; Kato, fin
fin thickness, R.; Ikeda,
spacing,Y.; Parque, V.; Faiz, M.K.; Yoshida, M.; Miyashita, T. Heatsink design using
hrce type of heat spiral-fins
sink. considering additive
temperature as factors and pressure drop and heat sink manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Electronics Packaging
sponses. Each factor was considered with three levels (Table pp. 46–51.
(ICEP), Niigata, Japan, 17–20 April 2019; Volume 175,
nstructed.
) consists of predicting fluid flow, heat, and
or DOE numerically
olving matrix for finsaheat set sinks.
of governing mathe-
ents testing and experimentation by reducing
Inlet Velocity (m/s) Heat Source Temperature (°C)
ntation and data acquisition. There are a num-
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 17 of 19
6. Bergman, T.L.; Lavine, A.S.; Incropera, F.P.; Dewitt, D.P. Introduction to Heat Transfer, 6th ed.; Don Fowley: Hoboken, NJ, USA,
2011; ISBN 9788578110796.
7. Wong, M.; Owen, I.; Sutcliffe, C.J.; Puri, A. Convective heat transfer and pressure losses across novel heat sinks fabricated by
Selective Laser Melting. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2009, 52, 281–288. [CrossRef]
8. Mohamad Nor, N.H.; Ismail, M.H.; Abu Kasim, N.A.; Teng, W.D.; Idris, M.I.I. Magnesite effect to the alumina sintering for heat
sink application. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 465–466, 70–75.
9. Seo, J.H.; Lee, M.Y. Illuminance and heat transfer characteristics of high power LED cooling system with heat sink filled with
ferrofluid. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 143, 438–449. [CrossRef]
10. Baldry, M.; Timchenko, V.; Menictas, C. Optimal design of a natural convection heat sink for small thermoelectric cooling modules.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019, 160, 114062. [CrossRef]
11. Martínez-Maradiaga, D.; Damonte, A.; Manzo, A.; Haertel, J.H.K.; Engelbrecht, K. Design and testing of topology optimized heat
sinks for a tablet. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 142, 118429. [CrossRef]
12. Chinthavali, M.S.; Wang, Z.J. 30-kW All-SiC inverter with 3D-printed air-cooled heatsinks for plug-in and full electric vehicle
applications. Mater. Sci. Forum 2018, 924, 845–848. [CrossRef]
13. Chinthavali, M.; Ayers, C.; Campbell, S.; Wiles, R.; Ozpineci, B. A 10-kW SiC inverter with a novel printed metal power module
with integrated cooling using additive manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Workshop on Wide Bandgap Power
Devices and Applications, Knoxville, TN, USA, 13–15 October 2014; pp. 48–54. [CrossRef]
14. Syed-Khaja, A.; Freire, A.P.; Kaestle, C.; Franke, J. Feasibility Investigations on Selective Laser Melting for the Development of
Microchannel Cooling in Power Electronics. Proc. Electron. Compon. Technol. Conf. 2017, 1491–1496. [CrossRef]
15. Collins, I.L.; Weibel, J.A.; Pan, L.; Garimella, S.V. A permeable-membrane microchannel heat sink made by additive manufacturing.
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 131, 1174–1183. [CrossRef]
16. Catchpole-Smith, S.; Sélo, R.R.J.; Davis, A.W.; Ashcroft, I.A.; Tuck, C.J.; Clare, A. Thermal Conductivity of TPMS Lattice Structures
Manufactured via Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 30, 1–9. [CrossRef]
17. Vaissier, B.; Pernot, J.P.; Chougrani, L.; Véron, P. Parametric design of graded truss lattice structures for enhanced thermal
dissipation. CAD Comput. Aided Des. 2019, 115, 1–12. [CrossRef]
18. Han, Y.; Lu, W.F. A novel design method for nonuniform lattice structures based on topology optimization. J. Mech. Des. Trans.
ASME 2018, 140, 1–10. [CrossRef]
19. Lazarov, B.S.; Sigmund, O.; Meyer, K.E.; Alexandersen, J. Experimental validation of additively manufactured optimized shapes
for passive cooling. Appl. Energy 2018, 226, 330–339. [CrossRef]
20. Santhanakrishnan, M.S.; Tilford, T.; Bailey, C. Multi-Material Heatsink Design Using Level-Set Topology Optimization. IEEE
Trans. Compon. Packag. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 9, 1504–1513. [CrossRef]
21. Ansari, D.; Kim, K.Y. Hotspot management using a hybrid heat sink with stepped pin-fins. Numer. Heat Transf. Part A Appl. 2019,
75, 359–380. [CrossRef]
22. Wits, W.W.; Jafari, D.; Jeggels, Y.; Van De Velde, S.; Jeggels, D.; Engelberts, N. Freeform-Optimized Shapes for Natural-Convection
Cooling. Mater. Sci. 2018, 2018, 1–6.
23. Wong, C.M.; Aziz, M.H.B.A.; Ong, N.R.; Alcain, J.B.; Sauli, Z. Variation in heat sink shape for thermal analysis. AIP Conf. Proc.
2017, 1885. [CrossRef]
24. Abdelsalam, Y.O.; Alimohammadi, S.; Pelletier, Q.; Persoons, T. A multi-objective genetic algorithm optimisation of plate-fin
heatsinks. In Proceedings of the 2017 23rd International Workshop on Thermal Investigations of ICs and Systems (THERMINIC),
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27–29 September 201; pp. 1–6.
25. Jonsson, H.; Moshfegh, B. Modeling of the Thermal and Hydraulic Performance of Plate Fin, Strip Fin, and Pin Fin Heat
Sinks—Influence of Flow Bypass. IEEE Exp. 2001, 24, 142–149. [CrossRef]
26. Kim, D.K. Thermal optimization of plate-fin heat sinks with fins of variable thickness under natural convection. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 2012, 55, 752–761. [CrossRef]
27. Charles, R.; Wang, C.C. An optimized heat dissipation fin design applicable for natural convection augmentation (IMPACT 2014).
In Proceedings of the 2014 9th International Microsystems, Packaging, Assembly and Circuits Technology Conference (IMPACT),
Taipei, Taiwan„ 22–24 October 2014; pp. 61–64.
28. Wong, K.C.; Indran, S. Impingement heat transfer of a plate fin heat sink with fillet profile. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2013,
65, 1–9. [CrossRef]
29. Jaffal, H.M. The Effect of Fin Design on Thermal Performance of Heat Sink. Univ. Baghdad Eng. J. 2017, 23, 123–146.
30. Ibrahim, T.K.; Mohammed, M.N.; Mohammed, M.K.; Najafi, G.; Azwadi Che Sidik, N.; Basrawi, F.; Abdalla, A.N.; Hoseini, S.S.
Experimental study on the effect of perforations shapes on vertical heated fins performance under forced convection heat transfer.
31. Tijani, A.S.; Jaffri, N.B. Thermal analysis of perforated pin-fins heat sink under forced convection condition. Procedia Manuf. 2018,
24, 290–298. [CrossRef]
32. Khan, W.A.; Culham, J.R.; Yovanovich, M.M. The role of fin geometry in heat sink performance. J. Electron. Packag. Trans. ASME
2006, 128, 324–330. [CrossRef]
33. Kou, H.S.; Lee, J.J.; Lai, C.Y. Thermal analysis and optimum fin length of a heat sink. Heat Transf. Eng. 2003, 24, 18–29. [CrossRef]
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 18 of 19
34. Kou, H.S.; Lee, J.J.; Chen, C.W. Optimum thermal analysis of a heat sink with various fin cross-sections by adjusting fin length
and cross-section. Heat Transf. Eng. 2008, 29, 537–545. [CrossRef]
35. Khan, W.A.; Culham, J.R.; Yovanovich, M.M. Modeling of cylindrical pin-fin heat sinks for electronic packaging. Annu. IEEE
Semicond. Therm. Meas. Manag. Symp. 2005, 31, 125–134.
36. Khan, W.A.; Culham, J.R.; Yovanovich, M.M. Optimization of pin-fin heat sinks in bypass flow using entropy generation
minimization method. J. Electron. Packag. Trans. ASME 2008, 130, 0310101–0310107. [CrossRef]
37. Zografos, A.I.; Sunderland, J.E. Numerical simulation of natural convection from pin fin arrays. Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. Heat Transf.
Div. HTD 1990, 157, 55–61.
38. Zhou, F.; Catton, I. Numerical evaluation of flow and heat transfer in plate-pin fin heat sinks with various pin cross-sections.
Numer. Heat Transf. Part A Appl. 2011, 60, 107–128. [CrossRef]
39. Sahiti, N.; Durst, F.; Geremia, P. Selection and optimization of pin cross-sections for electronics cooling. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2007,
27, 111–119. [CrossRef]
40. Gururatana, S.; Li, X. Numerical simulation of heat sink performance with interrupted and staggered fins. In Proceedings of the
ASME 2009 Heat Transfer Summer Conference collocated with the InterPACK09 and 3rd Energy Sustainability Conferences, San
Francisco, CA, USA, 19–23 July 2009; Volume 1, pp. 989–996.
41. Abdel-Rehim, Z.S. Optimization and thermal performance assessment of pin-fin heat sinks. Energy Sources Part A Recover. Util.
Environ. Eff. 2009, 31, 51–65. [CrossRef]
42. Yang, K.S.; Chu, W.H.; Chen, I.Y.; Wang, C.C. A comparative study of the airside performance of heat sinks having pin fin
configurations. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2007, 50, 4661–4667. [CrossRef]
43. Ho, J.Y.; Wong, K.K.; Leong, K.C.; Wong, T.N. Convective heat transfer performance of airfoil heat sinks fabricated by selective
laser melting. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2017, 114, 213–228. [CrossRef]
44. Khazaka, R.; Martineau, D.; Youssef, T.; Le, T.L.; Azzopardi, S. Direct Printing of Heat Sinks, Cases and Power Connectors on
Insulated Substrate Using Selective Laser Melting Techniques. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 69th Electronic Components and
Technology Conference (ECTC), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 28–31 May 2019; pp. 2173–2179.
45. Xia, G.; Chen, Z.; Cheng, L.; Ma, D.; Zhai, Y.; Yang, Y. Micro-PIV visualization and numerical simulation of flow and heat transfer
in three micro pin-fin heat sinks. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2017, 119, 9–23. [CrossRef]
46. Wong, M.; Tsopanos, S.; Sutcliffe, C.J.; Owen, I. Selective laser melting of heat transfer devices. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2007,
13, 291–297. [CrossRef]
47. Maji, A.; Bhanja, D.; Patowari, P.K. Effect of knurled fin surface on thermal performance of perforated fin heat sink. J. Thermophys.
Heat Transf. 2019, 33, 580–598. [CrossRef]
48. Ramphueiphad, S.; Bureerat, S. Synthesis of multiple cross-section pin fin heat sinks using multiobjective evolutionary algorithms.
49. Gupta, D.; Saha, P.; Roy, S. Computational analysis of perforation effect on the thermo-hydraulic performance of micro pin-fin
heat sink. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2021, 163, 106857. [CrossRef]
50. Sahel, D.; Bellahcene, L.; Yousfi, A.; Subasi, A. Numerical investigation and optimization of a heat sink having hemispherical pin
fins. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 2021, 122, 105133. [CrossRef]
51. Peles, Y.; Koşar, A.; Mishra, C.; Kuo, C.J.; Schneider, B. Forced convective heat transfer across a pin fin micro heat sink. Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 2005, 48, 3615–3627. [CrossRef]
52. Hatakeyama, T.; Ishizuka, M.; Kibushi, R. Experimental study on the performance of compact heat sink for LSI packages. In
Proceedings of the 2012 7th International Microsystems, Packaging, Assembly and Circuits Technology Conference (IMPACT),
Taipei, Taiwan, 24–26 October 2012; Volume 7, pp. 193–196.
53. Gao, L.; Sun, S.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, Y. Thermostructural multiobjective optimization of a composite sandwich panel with lattice truss
cores. Numer. Heat Transf. Part B Fundam. 2016, 70, 233–250. [CrossRef]
54. Roper, C.S. Multiobjective optimization for design of multifunctional sandwich panel heat pipes with micro-architected truss
cores. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2011, 32, 239–248. [CrossRef]
55. Ho, J.Y.; Leong, K.C.; Wong, T.N. Experimental and numerical investigation of forced convection heat transfer in porous lattice
structures produced by selective laser melting. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2019, 137, 276–287. [CrossRef]
56. Bhattacharya, A.; Mahajan, R.L. Finned metal foam heat sinks for electronics cooling in forced convection. J. Electron. Packag.
Trans. ASME 2002, 124, 155–163. [CrossRef]
57. Billiet, M.; De Schampheleire, S.; Huisseune, H.; De Paepe, M. Influence of orientation and radiative heat transfer on aluminum
foams in buoyancy-induced convection. Materials 2015, 8, 6792–6805. [CrossRef]
58. Maloney, K.J.; Fink, K.D.; Schaedler, T.A.; Kolodziejska, J.A.; Jacobsen, A.J.; Roper, C.S. Multifunctional heat exchangers derived
from three-dimensional micro-lattice structures. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2012, 55, 2486–2493. [CrossRef]
59. Cormier, Y.; Dupuis, P.; Jodoin, B.; Corbeil, A. Net shape fins for compact heat exchanger produced by cold spray. J. Therm. Spray
Technol. 2013, 22, 1210–1221. [CrossRef]
60. Son, K.N.; Weibel, J.A.; Kumaresan, V.; Garimella, S.V. Design of multifunctional lattice-frame materials for compact heat
exchangers. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2017, 115, 619–629. [CrossRef]
61. Yan, H.B.; Zhang, Q.C.; Lu, T.J.; Kim, T. A lightweight X-type metallic lattice in single-phase forced convection. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 2015, 83, 273–283. [CrossRef]
Materials 2021, 14, 2041 19 of 19
62. Hyun, S.; Torquato, S. Optimal and manufacturable two-dimensional, Kagomé-like cellular solids. J. Mater. Res.
2002, 17, 137–144. [CrossRef]
63. Dixit, T.; Nithiarasu, P.; Kumar, S. Numerical evaluation of additively manufactured lattice architectures for heat sink applications.
Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2021, 159, 106607. [CrossRef]
64. Patankar, S.V. Calculation of the flow field. In Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow; Phillips, M.A., Millman, E.M., Eds.;
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 113–138. ISBN 0-89116-522-3.
65. Moukalled, F.; Mangani, L.; Darwish, M. The Finite Volume Method in Computational Fluid Dynamics; Thess, A., Moreau, R., Eds.;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 113, ISBN 9783319168739.
66. Wu, T.; Ozpineci, B.; Ayers, C. Genetic algorithm design of a 3D printed heat sink. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Applied
Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), Long Beach, CA, USA, 20–24 March 2016; pp. 3529–3536.
67. Tong, X.C. Thermal Management Fundamentals and Design Guides in Electronic Packaging. In Advanced Materials for Thermal
Management of Electronic Packaging; Itoh, K., Lee, T., Sakurai, T., Sansen, W.M.C., Schmitt-Landsiedel, D., Eds.; Springer: New
York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 1–58. ISBN 9788578110796.
68. Adewumi, O.O.; Bello-Ochende, T.; Meyer, J.P. Numerical Investigation into the Thermal Performance of Single Microchannels
with Varying Axial Length and Different Shapes of Micro Pin-Fin Inserts. Heat Transf. Eng. 2017, 38, 1157–1170. [CrossRef]
69. Launder, B.E.; Spalding, D.B. Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence; Academic Press: London, UK, 1979; ISBN1 0124380506.
ISBN2 9780124380509.
70. John, T.J.; Mathew, B.; Hegab, H. Parametric study on the combined thermal and hydraulic performance of single phase micro
pin-fin heat sinks part I: Square and circle geometries. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2010, 49, 2177–2190. [CrossRef]
71. Lin, S.C.; Chuang, F.S.; Chou, C.A. Experimental study of the heat sink assembly with oblique straight fins. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci.
2005, 29, 591–600. [CrossRef]
72. Tavassoli, B. Novel Heat Sink Design for Low Speed. Math. Problem Eng. 2000, 8, 16–20.
73. Gu, S.; Lu, T.J.; Evans, A.G. On the design of two-dimensional cellular metals for combined heat dissipation and structural load
capacity. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2001, 44, 2163–2175. [CrossRef]

Evaluation of Active Heat Sinks Design Under Forced

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Active Heat Sinks Design Under Forced

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

materials

1 IPC—Institute of Polymers and Composites, Department of Polymer Engineering, Campus de Azurém,

Received: 27 February 2021 1. Introduction

Materials 2021, 14, 2041. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14082041 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

1.1. Conventional Heat Sinks Design and Topology

1.2. Lattice Heat Sinks

Table 1. Main properties of the materials considered for each component.

Table 1. Main properties of the materials considered for each component.

Figure 4. DifferentFigure 4. Different

Figure 5. Different pins shapes under

In order to confirm the advantages of additive manufacturing for thermal manage-

Figure 6. Different lattice heat sinks models.

Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19

Regarding boundary conditions, as expected, the effect of inlet velocity on pressure

Regarding boundary conditions, as expected, the effect of inlet velocity on pressure

Table 4. Correlation between heat sink temperature and geometrical parameters.

Number of Heat Source Velocity HS Temperature

Table 5. Correlation between pressure drop and DOE factors.

Heat Source Pressure Drop

Total Area Front Area Volume HS Temperature Pressure Drop

Figure 10. Model E variants.

Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

Figure 11. Best fin heat sink (among those studied).

Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

Figure 16. Best pin heat sink (among those studied).

3.4. Fins vs. Pins vs. Lattice Heat Sink

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, software, formal analysis, investigation,

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

∇ ∙ (𝜌𝑢⃗) = 0 Conflicts of Interest: The

sidered at a room t Thetime (s)

You might also like