Heat Transfer—Japanese Research, 25 (7), 1996 Prediction Algorithm of Thermal Resistance for Impingement Cooling of Heat Sinks for LSI Packages with Pin-Fin Arrays Yoshihiro Kondo and Hitoshi Matsushima Mechanical Engineering Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd., Japan This paper is a semi-empirical report on an algorithm for the prediction of thermal resistance for impingement cooling of pin-fin heat sinks for LSI packages when the inlet orifice is relatively large and is located over the center of the sink. We present a physical model suitable for these types of heat sinks, based on flow visualization results. The model divides the flow region into five parts: I) the top surfaces of the fins where they are directly under the inlet orifice, II) the portions of the vertical surfaces of the pin-fin cylinders, where those surfaces are directly below the inlet port, III) the surface of the base to which the fins are attached, excluding the areas occupied by the feet of the fins themselves, IV) the portions of the vertical surfaces of the fin-cylinders excluding those portions of the surfaces that are directly below the inlet port (complementary to region II), V) the portions of the top surfaces of the pins, excluding those portions directly below the inlet port (complementary to region I). We predicted thermal resistance values for heat sinks with pin-fin arrays, for a variety of orifice diameters, gaps, pin-fin diameters, and heights, and number of fins. These values agreed with experimental data within +30%. © 1997 Scripta Technica, Inc. Heat Trans Jpn Res, 25(7): 434-448, 1996 Key words: Forced convection, heat transfer, impingement cooling, heat sink, pin-fin, prediction, thermal resistance, flow visualization, cooling performance 1, Introduction The word “rightsizing” in reference to electronic machines such as computers, implies increasing demand for compact structures and high performance levels, This demand leads to the problem of rapid increases in heat dissipation density for those machines. Impingement cooling is becoming one of the most important technologies to overcome this difficulty. Although there is a wide range of research on impingement cooling for flat plates {1-3] or plates with slight roughness [4, 5], there have been few studies on impingement cooling for heat sinks [6, 7]. To fill this gap, the authors made an intensive study on the impingement air-cooled performance of heat sinks, where the heat-sink base size was set to 60 mm x 60 mm in consideration of application to the cooling of LSI packages. In a previous paper [8], we conducted an experimental study of the impingement cooling characteristics of various types of pin-fins. Heat transfer depends less on the direction of air flow for pin-fin sinks than it does for those with longitudinal fins, We found that the orifice geometry that maximizes the cooling performance per unit of pumping power is a circular orifice with a diameter of about 1/3 of the heat sink side (20 mm) centered above the sink. CCC0096-0802/96/070434-15 © 1997 Scripta Technica, Inc. 434In practice it is important to know the cooling performances of different types of pin-fins. Sathe and coworkers [9] performed numerical simulations for impingement cooling performance with.256 square pin-fins. The number and shape of the pins in this case seem likely to have been restricted by practical computational limitations such as memory and CPU time. It would be difficult to simulate the heat sinks with many circular pin-fins in which we are interested. To do this, we sought an algorithm [10] for predicting the pressure drop in pin-fin heat sinks for the optimal orifice geometry described above, for a variety of gap breadths between the heat sink and orifice, and a variety of pin diameters and heights, numbers of pins, and so on. This algorithm had to be calculable in a short time with reasonable accuracy. The purpose of this paper is to present the algorithm which we can use for predicting thermal resistances of pin-fin heat sinks under impingement cooling. Nomenclature surface area of region i, m? total surface area of heat sink, m? (Ay + Ag, in this study) height of the heat sink base, m specific heat, J/(kg - K) orifice diameter, m pin diameter, m fin efficiency gap breath (vertical space between the heat sink and inlet orifice), m total height of the heat sink, m fin height, m heat transfer coefficient of region i, Wm? - K) heat transfer coefficient defined by difference between bulk mean temperature of air and wall temperature of heat sink, W/(m? - K) heat transfer coefficient defined by difference between inlet-air temperature and wall temperature of heat sink, W/(m? - K) length of heat sink base, m number of pins inter-pin pitch, m pumping power, W Prandtl number volumetric flow rate, m?/min volumetric flow rate contributed to heat transfer, m’/s thermal resistance between heat sink and air, °C/W Reynolds number of region i inlet air temperature, °C heat-sink base temperature, °C representative mean air velocity at region i, m/s net heat dissipated, W width of heat sink base, m ratio between local air temperature between pins and bulk mean air temperature thermal conductivity, W/(m - K) kinematic viscosity, m’/s 435p: air density, kg/m’ Subscripts air: air C: region where flow is perpendicular to pins (i.e., region not directly under inlet) fin: heat sink L: region where flow is parallel to pins (ie., region directly under inlet) i: sub-region of the heat sink surface (always 2 or 4, in this study) 2. Investigated Heat Sinks The pin-fins used as the subject of our investigation are the same as those in our previous paper [8] The geometry and size of the heat sinks are shown in Fig. 1, and were all made of aluminum with an in-liie pin arrangement. The pin diameter d, fin height H,, inter-pin pitch P, and surface area Ay were varied. The orifices used in the experiment were all 10 mm deep and their diameters D, were varied from 10 mm to 40 mm. The gap G (space between the heat sink and the orifice) was also varied from Ommto 12 mm. 3. Flow Visualization Experiment We conducted flow visualization experiments by the tracer method in order to understand the flow between the pin-fins. We used water as the fluid medium and powdered nylon (I-um-diameter particles) as a tracer, since it has almost the same specific gravity as water. A pump was used as the source of fluid motion. A propeller was used in order to make the distributions of water temperature o)M|P) Ay] A (oom) Gen) | (me) 47%) 1] 0.3 |3600/0.98] 9.0] 3.4 2 {0.4 [2704/1.13] 9.0] 3.4 3 [0.5 [2146/ 1.281 4.0[ 1.7 4 | 0.5 11089] 1.76] 9.0[ 1.9 5 [0.5 /2116|1.28] 9.0/ 3.4 6 Z 8 0.5 [2116|1.28114.0] 5.0 0.5 {1024/1.82/19.0] 3.4 ye 1.0 |1089|1.76) 9.0| 3.4 . 9 11.5 [1089/1.76] 9.0[ 6.0 |H =H,+88=1,L =Wo=60 10 [2.0] 529/2.50/ 9.0] 3.4 =iot Rae (mmm) Fig. 1. Dimensions of pin-fins. 436and tracer particles in the test cistern uniform. For flow-rate measurements, a manometer was used. A closed water channel was used for this experiment with an order of circulation as follows: cistern—spump—test section—smanometer—cistern, The test section was made of acrylic so as to see inside. The internal base-area of the test section was 160 mm x 160 mm, far larger than the heat sink size of 60 mm x 60 mm. The height of the test section was adjustable, making it possible to investigate the effect of different gaps between the fin tops and the inlet orifice. The source of light used for visualization was a halogen lamp with a slit opening. All of the apparatus body except for the heat sink were made of acrylic, and were blackened except for the area through which photographs were taken and light from the lamp admitted. The heat sink used in the experiment was type 5 in Fig. 1, which has an in-line pin arrangement. Figure 2 shows the flow visualization. The left-hand half of the heat sink is shown from the length (L) side, and the white lines are flow tracks. Flow enters the heat sink from the inlet orifice above, as indicated by the arrow symbols. The Reynolds number is 9000, where the representative length is the orifice diameter D, and the representative velocity is the mean flow velocity over the entire cross section of the orifice. This is equivalent to a volumetric flow rate of 0.13 m/min in the ee tony Fig. 2. Flow visualization for heat sink with pin-fins (heat sink type 5, D, = 20 mm, Rep, = 9000). 437case of air. The level of flow similarity across the heat-sink area seems to be the same for Reynolds ‘numbers in the range from somewhat more than 100 to about 1000. Consequently, we consider flow similarity to be maintained within a wide range. As shown in Fig. 2, for no gap (0 mm) and a 2-mm gap. the flow tracks at the exits from the pin-fins indicate that the flow patterns there are almost the same as those between the pin-fins parallel to the base. Also, at a gap breadth of 7 mm, a bypass flow is seen, which flows back out above the heat sink, not staying in the region between the pins where it is when it first enters from the orifice. That is, although the flow within the inter-pin region is basically the same as in the case of no gap and a 2-mm gap: a perpendicular flow escaping across the tops of the pin-fins was also observed. Also, by visual observation, we confirmed that the difference in air velocities between those flowing between the pin-fins and those flowing in the gap area would not be extreme. The reason seems to be that the flow resistance between the pin-fins is large enough so that a great deal of the flow escapes up into the gap. This phenomena is quite different from the case where the flow resistance between the fins is small [11] (as width plate fins). 4. Thermal Resistance Prediction Procedure Based on the results of our experiment on visualization the flows around the pin-fins in section, 3, we divide the impingement-cooling flow over the fins into the five areas (Fig. 3). (For convenience, even in the case where the gap is more than 7 mm, we specified the flow pattem in the model as the same as that with no gap or a gap of 2 mm.) The areas are: (1) The top surfaces of the fins where they are directly under the inlet orifice. inlet orifice Dy Fig. 3. Flow model of heat sink with pin-fins. 438(2) The portions of the vertical surfaces of the pin-fin cylinders, where those surfaces are directly below the inlet port. Here it is considered that, after the flow enters the pin-fins, the cooling flow. velocity flowing parallel to the pin-fins accelerates in comparison with fin tops in region (1) with contraction of the cross sectional flow area at the entrance of the pin-fins. (3) The surface of the base to which the fins are attached, excluding the areas occupied by the feet of the fins themselves. (4) The portions of the vertical surfaces of the fin cylinders excluding those portions of the surfaces that are directly below the inlet port. Here it is considered that all cooling air flows perpendicular to the pin-fins. The representative velocity in this area is the mean value at the middle position between the outside edges of the heat sink and the inlet orifice. (5) The portions of the top surfaces of the pins, excluding those portions directly below the inlet port. In the present study, the ratios of the areas of regions (1), (3), and (5) to the total surface ar are 1% or less, about 5%, and about 1%, respectively, and thus can be ignored from a practical viewpoint. Consequently, we did not model those areas. In this study, thermal resistance is treated as follows: Reg = (Te~ Te)/W= VMAy: hy) a he=(1— 6%) hy/8 (2) E = ((Az +g) Fy (Pair Cp O78) _ Q' = H//(H,+ G)- 9/60 (4) where x is the ratio [12] between the local air temperature within the array of pin-fins and the bulk-mean air temperature. This value indicates the proportion of the air flow that contributes to heat transfer. In this case, the use of « = |.4 showed a reasonable accuracy of predicted thermal resistance as compared against all measurement values. The supplied cooling air had a volumetric flow rate Q (m/min). The results produced by the prediction algorithm for pin-fin pressure drop (previous paper [10}) suggest the use of a constant ratio of air-flow volumes between the flow between the fins and that in the gap, which it is assumed to be equal to the ratio of the sum of fin height Hand gap G to fin height Hy The heat transfer coefficient hy is defined as the difference between the bulk mean air temperature between the fins and the overall average wall temperature of the heat sink. ‘Ap, Aq are areas of the heat transfer surfaces in the above-mentioned regions (2) and (4): A) =Ny-{n- Di/4/(L- Wa) xd Hy 439Ag= Ny: {1 -- DU/4/M(L- Wd) 0d > Hy Ay= Az + Ag (6) The heat transfer coefficients at the each region are given by the following relations. Region (2): Heat transfer in this region (where the flow is parallel to the pin cylinders) is treated as that for internal tube flow which has an equal hydraulic diameter to the space between four neighboring pins [13]. Therefore, the heat transfer correlations used were those for laminar and turbulent flows inside circular tubes (14, 15]. The velocity from top to bottom along the pins was treated as constant. This was appropriate because the difference between the heat transfer coefficient calculated by Sparrow and coworkers (6] (which included the effect of the velocity decrease of cooling air as the flow reached the pin-fin base for one particular arrangement) and the heat transfer coefficient calculated by using our formula was relatively small 8%. For Re, $2 x 10° a 0.104(De>/H,) Rey: Pr ir 6 ¢,] 205+ 1 + 0.016{(De/H,) - Rey Pr}°* For Re, > 2x 10° o7 | deair 08 pps. Dez qa Dor 0.023 Res PAO H| | Where, Rey = Uz + Dez/Vgip (8) Up = Q'/((m- D3/4) ~ Ny m D}/4/(L- Wad) «(x - d?/4)} (9) (10) Dey=4+(P?-0-a?/4)(n +d) Region (4): The pin-fins were treated as a group of tubes and therefore the heat transfer correlations for flow through an in-line array of tubes was used. The formula used for this was that of Zukauskas [16]. In this region, for convenience, the flow is considered to be perpendicular to the pins. This was appropriate because the difference between the heat-transfer coefficients for such flow and that for inclined flow, spreading from the inlet orifice is very small (about 3%), and the number of pins that would be hit by the inclined flow is a comparatively small proportion of the total number of pins. For Re, $1 x 107 4402.0.9 - Reg. Pr36 ay For | x 10? < Re, $1 x10° 0.52 - Rego - Pr®3° For Re, > 1x 10° Rain hea 0.27 + Reg? ® « pp3® (3) . Where, Rey = Us: d/V gir a4) Uy = Q'/4/((1 = d/P) + Hy ((L+ Wad)/2 + (- D3/4)°5}/2] (5) In this analysis, we study the efficiency of pin-fins. The fins are divided into the two regions: the region directly under the inlet orifice (where flow is parallel to pin-fin shafts), and all other areas (where flow is perpendicular to the pin-fins). We calculate the efficiency for each region separately. using the variables Fr, and Frc, respectively. We base our calculations on the formula for a single pin-fin [17]. For example, the expression for the region under the inlet orifice is: Fry = Th/Ud (16) where Ths (e4 — eV /(e4 + Ud) ay and Ud = 2+ Hy: (Ay/Opy “B18 cs) Consequently, if we take fin efficiency into account, we can correct the mean heat transfer coefficient for the heat-sink surface hyas follows: y= (Ap hy Fr, + Ags hg Fro)/Ay (9) 4415. Results and Discussion We now compare the values of thermal resistance predicted using the correlations in section 4 with experimental values obtained in a previous study [8]. For our predictions in this case, we used an air temperature of 20 °C. 5.1 Effects of inlet-orifice diameter Figure 4 shows the difference between the predicted and experimental values of thermal resistance R,, for different inlet-orifice diameters D,. At a constant volumetric flow rate Q, both the experimental and predicted values of thermal resistance increase as orifice diameter increases. Although the prediction algorithm used in this paper is based on the very simple model, as shown in Fig. 4, the predicted and experimental values match to within a +20% error margin for orifice diameters of 10 mm and 20 mm. When the inlet orifice diameter is larger, (such as 30 mm and 40 mm), the difference between the experimental and predicted values become large, with the experi- mental values being greater than predicted (maximum error is about +30%). We believe the reason for this to be that, although our predicted values were calculated assuming uniform air velocity for all points between the fins, in reality, when the inlet-orifice diameter is large, hardly any of the flow arrives at the heat-sink base, and the ratio of ineffective (bypass), ie., cooling, air flowing back up into the gap region increases. For example, in the case of D, = 40 mm and Q = 0.8 m‘/min, the flow rate of such bypass air (obtained from Eq. (2)) is 0.15 m/min, However, if we calculate the bypass air flow rate to meet the corresponding experimentally measured thermal resistance, the flow value becomes 0.3 m'/min, twice that of Eq. (2). The estimated contribution of region (4) to the overall surface heat-transfer coefficient of the heat sink is large, for example it is 96% of the total for Dy = =0.5 (mm), H=9 (mm) M=2116, G=2 (mm) \tnal[experiment| prediction 1o[ oo | —— 20; A 30] oO 40 Ls Semi 1.0 0.5 Q (m/min) Fig. 4. Effect of inlet orifice diameter on thermal resistance of heat sink. 44210 mm, 93% for D, = 20 mm, 90% for D; = 30 mm, and 80% for Dy = 40 mm at Q = 0.5 m/min. In the following discussion, the diameter D, of the inlet orifice is fixed at 20 mm, which guarantees a moderate accuracy of estimation. 5.2 Effects of gap breadth Figure 5 shows acomparison of the experimental and predicted values of the thermal resistance of heat sink (R,,) for different breadths G of the gap between the inlet orifice and the heat sink top The margin of error between the predicted and experimental values is about +20% in the case of no gap and a 2-mm gap. As the gap increased to 7 mm, the difference between the experimental and the predicted values became as large as 30%. In addition, when the gap increased to 12 mm, the difference between the experimental and the predicted values becomes still larger. This is due to the fact that the flow among the pin-fins is not uniform at gaps of more than 7 mm, as mentioned in the discussion of the flow-visualization photograph (Fig. 2); after the flow enters the heat sink some portion of it flows back out into the gap (bypass) region. Consequently, the present model, in which the ratio of flow rate among the fins to flow rate in the gap is constant, is no longer applicable. Looking carefully at Fig. 5, the experimental values for the thermal resistance of the heat sink are minimum in the case of G =2 mm fora fixed flow rate Q (as mentioned in a previous paper [8]), but the predicted values of thermal resistance increase with gap breadth. Possible reasons might be that, as the gap widens toward 2mm from 0 mm, the thermal resistance increases due to a decrease in the rate of air flowing into the pin-fins; or a decrease in thermal resistance due to the generation of turbulence at the pin tops. For the following discussion, the gap G is fixed at 0 mm, to exclude any effect of bypass flow of the cooling air. F=0.5(mm), He= 9mm) 116, 0.=20 (mm) (na experiment] prediction] o S ae Rog (CC/W) ot 0.5 1.0 Q (m/min) Fig. 5. Effect of gap between inlet orifice and fin tops on thermal resistance of heat sink. 443,5.3 Effects of pin diameter Figure 6 shows the change in thermal resistance R,, with respect to change in pin diameter d, when the surface area A, and fin height H, are constant. As shown, the predicted thermal resistance agreed with the experimental values to an accuracy of about £30% for all values of pin diameter (although the error is a little higher at high flow rates when pin diameter is small). The predicted values also show a similar trend as that of the experimental values. The difference in thermal resistance is very small with respect to changes in pin diameter at lower flow rates. The main reason for the discontinuity in predicted thermal resistance near Q = 0.5-0.6 m/min at d= 1 mm is that the heat transfer coefficient h, in region (4) changes with change in Reynolds number. The calculated values of fin efficiency for Q = 0.5 m'/min are as follows: for region (4), where flow is perpendicular to the pins, Fre = 0.59 (d = 0.3 mm), 0.68 (0.4 mm), 0.73 (0.5 mm), 0.86 (1.0 mm), and 0.90 (2.0 mm). Also in region (2), where the flow is parallel to the pins, Fr, = 0.73 (0.3 mm), 0.77 (0.4 mm), 0.81 (0.5 mm), 0.88 (1.0 mm), and 0.92 (2.0 mm). It is seen that the fin efficiency decreases drastically when the pin diameter d becomes small. This is thought to be the reason for the increase in thermal resistance at higher flow rates when the pins are thin. Figure 7 shows the heat sink thermal resistance R,, in relation to changes in pin diameter d, when the number of pins Nyand pin height Hare constant. When the flow rate Q is also constant, the experimental and predicted thermal resistances both become lower at larger pin diameters, Di=20(mm), G=0(mm) jA=3.4X10°2(m?), Hp= 9 (mm) [d(mm) [experiment] prediction| 0.3 ° 0.4 4 0.5 a 1.0 2 20, Vj[----- 1.0 =05| S v ae = 0.1 = 0.1 51.0 Q (m*/min) Fig. 6. Effect of pin-fin diameter on thermal resistance of heat sink (heat sink area is constant) 444D1=20(mm), G=0(mm) (N= 1089, Hy=9 (mm) [d(om) experiment] prediction 05{ 0 10] a | 1.5 o = = 2 8 a 0.1 0.5 1.0 2 (m/min) Fig. 7. Effect of pin-fin diameter on thermal resistance of heat sink (number of pin-fins is constant). due to the corresponding increase in the heat sink surface area. In such cases, the predicted and experimental resistance values agree with an accuracy of about +20%. 5.4 Effects of fin height Figure 8 shows the change of thermal resistance R,, with the change in fin height H, when the number of pins Nyis constant at 2116 and the pin diameter d is fixed at 0.5 mm. In this case, the predicted thermal resistance agrees with the experimental values with an accuracy of approximately +20%. The reason that the change in thermal resistances (at a constant flow rate) with change in fin height is small, is that the effect of the increase in surface area with an increase in fin height cancels the effect of the decrease of the air velocity between the pins (i.e., decrease in heat transfer coefficient) and the corresponding decrease in fin efficiency. For example, the values obtained using these relations for the heat transfer coefficient and fin efficiency in region (4) when the air flow rate is 0.5 m*/min, are 632 Wi(m? - K) and 90% for H, = 4 mm, and 338 Wi(m? - K) and 60% for Hy= 14 mm, respectively. Figure 9 shows the change in thermal resistance R,, with change in fin height Hy when the pin diameter d and the surface area Ay are constant. In this case, as well, the predicted thermal resistances agreed with the experimental values with an accuracy of about +20%. The reason that the thermal resistance for H/= 19 mm becomes large lies in the small value of the effective heat transfer coefficient for Hy= 19 mm, due to the low fin efficiency (for example it is 74% for H-= 9 mm and 53% for Hy= 19 mm at Q = 0.5 m/min), 4450(mm), G=0(mm) M=2116, d=0.5(mm) AAnn)] experiment] prediction] _ . 0.1 0.5 1.0 Q (m*/min) Fig. 8. Effect of pin-fin height on thermal resistance of heat sink (number of pin-fins is constant). D1=20(mm), G=0(mm) =9.4X10% (m2), d=0.5 (mm) |Helmm)| experiment| prediction] 19 Oe) 0.1 0.5 1.0 Q (m/min) Fig. 9. Effect of pin-fin height on thermal resistance of heat sink (heat sink area is constant). 4465.5 Effects of number of pins Figure 10 shows the change in thermal resistance R.., with change in the number of pins N, when the pin diameter d and the pin height H, are constant. In this case also, predicted therma resistances agreed with experimental values with an accuracy of about +20%. Although the numbers of pins treated in this study were comparatively large (many hundreds) we ignored the effect of heat transfer via the pin base (region (3)). However, when the number of pin is small (several dozen), the ratio of the heat sink base area to the total surface ara become: comparatively large. In this case, itis desirable to consider the base heat-transfer effect. Determining an accurate correlation for the heat transfer coefficient of a fin base arca with few pins is an issue for future investigation. 5. Conclusions We investigated the impingement cooling characteristics of heat sinks with pin-fins, in which the heat-transfer efficiency does not depend as strongly on flow direction as it does in sinks with longitudinal fins. An algorithm for thermal resistance prediction, based on the results of flow visualization, was presented, and the effectiveness of the prediction procedure was examined. The following summarizes the information covered and results obtained: D1=20(mm), G=0(mm) d=0.5(mm), Hr=9 (mm) 0.1 0.5 1.0 Q (m/min) Fig. 10. Effect of number of pin-fins on thermal resistance of heat sink (pin-fin diameter is constant). 447(1) A prediction algorithm was presented for the thermal resistance of a heat sink with an array of pin-fins when a circular inlet orifice is positioned over the heat-sink center. (2) Using the above-mentioned algorithm, the predicted values agreed with experimental data with an accuracy of about 30% for a wide range of parametric values for orifice diameter, gap breadth (only those less than 7 mm), pin diameter, fin height, and number of pins. The prediction accuracy was better when the cooling air from the inlet orifice flowed through the entire region of the pin-fins. Accuracy was worse when the air flow which bypassed some pins and escaped into the gap became large due to an increase in either the gap breadth or orifice diameter (gap more than 7 mm or orifice diameter more than 20 mm), Rene Literature Cited Hamadah, T. T. 1989. ASME, HTD, 111, 107. Martin, H. 1977. Advances in Heat Transfer (Edited by J. P. Hartnett and T. F. Irvine), 13, 1 Obot, N. T.,and T. A. Trabold. 1987. Trans. of the ASME, Journal of Heat Transfer, 109, 872. Heindel, T. J., S, Ramadhyani, and F. P. Incropera. 1992. ASME, HTD, 206 (2), Topics in Heat Transfer, M1. Hollworth, B. R., and M. Durbin. 1989, ASME, HTD, 111, Heat Transfer in Electronics, 89. Sparrow, E. M., and E, D. Larson. 1982. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 25(5), 603. . Sullivan, P. F., S. Ramadhyani, and F. P. Incropera. 1992. ASME, Advances in Electronic Packaging, 207. - Kondo, Y., and H. Matsushima. 1995. Transactions of the JSME, 61 (582 B), 697. Sathe, S., et al. 1993. ASME, EEP, 4(2), Advances in Electronic Packaging, 893. . Kondo, Y., and H. Matsushima. 1994. Transactions of the JSME, 60 (579 B), 3943. . Kondo, Y., and H. Matsushima. 1995. Transactions of the JSME, 60 (586 B), 2254. (English Translation is in press in Heat Transfer-Japanese Research) . Ashiwake, N., W. Nakayama, T. Daikoku, and F. Kobayashi. 1983. ASME. HTD, 28, Heat Transfer in Electronic Equipment, 35. JSME Data Book, 1975. Heat Transfer, 3rd ed., 42. }. Kays, W. M. 1995. Transactions of the ASME, 77, 1265. . McAdams, W. H. 1954. Heat Transmission, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 226. . Zukauskas, A. 1987. Convective Heat Transfer in Cross Flow. Handbook of Single-Phase Convective Heat Transfer. (Edited by S. Kakac, R. K. Shah, and W. Aung), John Wiley & Sons, 6, |. JSME Data Book, 1975. Heat Transfer, 3rd ed., 155. Originally published in Trans. JSME (B), 62 (595), 1996, 1164-1171 Translated by Yoshihiro Kondo, Mechanical Engineering Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd., 502 Kandatsu, Tsuchiura, Ibaraki 300, Japan. 448