You are on page 1of 7

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer


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

Optimum design of a radial heat sink under natural convection


Seung-Hwan Yu, Kwan-Soo Lee , Se-Jin Yook
School of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-dong, Sungdong-gu, Seoul 133-791, South Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

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

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

1. Introduction The light-emitting diode (LED) market has grown recently, thanks to enhancements in LED luminous efciency. Nevertheless, about 70% of the total energy consumed by an LED light is emitted as heat, creating a thermal problem. Without properly dissipating this heat, the performance and life of an LED light is impaired. Thus, to commercialize LED lights, the problem of heat dissipation must be solved rst. Natural convection heat sinks are appropriate for LED lights, in view of their overall advantages. There have been numerous experimental [15] and numerical [6,7] studies of natural convection heat transfer in rectangular-n or pin-n heat sinks. Harahap and Setio [1] performed experiments to obtain the average heat transfer coefcients for ve different rectangular heat sinks, and proposed a correlation to predict the average heat transfer coefcient. Huang et al. [2] conducted an experimental study of seven types of pin-n heat sinks (both vertically and horizontally oriented), and the optimum shape of a pinn heat sink was suggested for each orientation. Bar-Cohen et al. [6] optimized a rectangular heat sink by employing existing correlations; they considered the mass of the heat sink, as well as the thermal performance. Dialameh et al. [7] carried out a numerical study to predict natural convection from arrays of aluminum horizontal rectangular thick ns with short lengths. They compared the effects of various n geometries and temperature differences on the convection heat transfer of heat sinks, and proposed a non-dimensional correlation. However, most of these studies were
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2220 0426; fax: +82 2 2295 9021.
E-mail address: ksleehy@hanyang.ac.kr (K.-S. Lee). 0017-9310/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2011.02.012

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

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

S.-H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxxxxx

Nomenclature A b Cp F H h k L M N P _ q R r T t u v surface area for heat transfer [m2] spacing between ns [m] specic heat [J/(kg K)] view factor n height [m] heat transfer coefcient[W/(m2 K)] thermal conductivity [W/(m K)] n length [m] mass of heat sink [kg] number of ns pressure [Pa] heat ux [W/m2] universal gas constant[J/mol K] radius [m] temperature [K] thickness of n [m] x-component of velocity [m/s] y-component of velocity [m/s] w z-component of velocity [m/s]

Greek symbols dynamic viscosity [N/m2 s] density [kg/m3] h angle as in Fig. 2 [] e emissivity x weighting factor

l q

Subscripts avg average f uid (air) i inner L long n M middle n o outer ref reference model 1 ambient

(3) The density of air is calculated from the ideal gas law. (4) Radiation heat transfer is neglected. The governing equations are as follows. Air side Continuity equation:

Table 1 Properties of air and heat sink. Material Air Heat sink CP (J/kgoC) 1.005 10
3

l (N/m2s)
1.834 10
5

k (W/m oC) 2.643 10


5

q (kg/m3)
Patm R=M w T

2.719 103

2.024 102

8.91 102

@qu @qv @qw 0 @x @y @z

Momentum equations:

! @qu2 @quv @quw @P @2u @2u @2u l 2 2 @x @y @z @x @x2 @y @z @qv u @qv 2 @qv w @P @2v @2v @2v l @x @y @z @y @x2 @y2 @z2 gq q1 ! @qwu @qwv @qw2 @P @2w @2w @2w l 2 2 @x @y @z @z @x2 @y @z !

where q1 is the air density corresponding to the ambient temperature. Energy equation:

@quT @qv T @qwT k @x @y @z CP


Solid side Energy equation:

@2T @2T @2T @x2 @y2 @z2

! 5

@2T @2T @2T 0 @x2 @y2 @z2


The density of air is obtained from

P atm R=M w T

where Mw (the molecular weight of air) is 28.966 kg/kmol. 2.2. Boundary conditions Periodic boundary conditions were used, in accordance with the repetitive characteristics of the heat sink geometry (Fig. 1). Considering the number of grids and the computational time involved,

Fig. 1. Fin-array conguration

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

S.-H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxxxxx

sink temperature by less than 0.5%. Additionally, the grid sensitivity was tested by changing the number of grid points from approximately 20,000300,000, and a grid system with 65,016 grid points was chosen for the L-type reference model with NL = 20, ro = 0.075 m, LL = 0.055 m, and t = 0.002 m. The computation time for single evaluation was about 3 h using a 2.4 GHz Intel i760 processor. 3. Experiments and validation The numerical model is veried with experimental data, by comparing the differences between ambient and heat sink temperatures. The heat sink is made of aluminum (Al2014), with no additional surface treatment. As Fig. 3(a) shows, the experimental setup consisted of a lm heater (Kapton-coated stainless steel, 25 lm), a heat sink, an insulator, type-T thermocouples (gauge 36), a data acquisition device (NI cDAQ-9172, NI9211), a power supply, a wattmeter, and a personal computer. The lm heater is attached to the bottom surface of the heat sink. Thermal grease is used to minimize the thermal contact resistance between the lm heater and the heat sink. To reduce heat loss, the lm heater section is surrounded by an insulator. As illustrated in Fig. 3(b), heat sink temperatures are measured with eight thermocouples (located at four points of the central region and four points of the outer region of the upper heat sink base), and the ambient temperature is measured with two thermocouples. The geometric parameters of the experimental L-type model are NL = 20, ro = 0.075 m, ri = 0.01 m, LL = 0.055 m, H = 0.0213 m, and t = 0.002 m. For the numerical simulation, radiation heat transfer is neglected. In the experiments, however, natural convection and radiation heat transfer occurs simultaneously. The effect of radiation heat transfer is obtained from

_ Q radiation FAeT 4 T 4 avg 1

Fig. 2. Computational domain and dimensions

Here, F is the view factor, A is the surface area for heat transfer, e is the emissivity of the heat sink, and r is the Stefan-Boltzmann

only a single set of ns was analyzed. Fig. 2 shows computational domain and dimensions. The following boundary conditions are imposed: _ (a) Heat sink base: constant heat ux, q ks @T s jheat sink base @n (b) Periodic interface (uid): periodic condition [8], ui ~i r ui ~ ~ r L where ~ is the position vector and ~ is the periodic length r L vector (c) Periodic interface (solid): symmetric condition, @T s j 0 @n sectional wall (d) The remaining outer faces: pressure condition (pressure inlet / outlet condition) (e) Interface between the air and the solid: T f;wall T s;wall kf @T f jwall ks @T s jwall @n @n 2.3. Numerical procedure The SIMPLE algorithm was used to couple the velocity and pressure. For improved accuracy, a second-order upwind scheme was applied to the convective terms of the governing equations. The convergence criterion for all dependent variables was a relative error of 105. To optimize the computational domain size, the height of the domain was varied from 2H to 10H, and the radius of the domain was varied from 1.3ro to 1.6ro. Increasing the height and radius beyond 5H and 1.5ro, respectively, changed the average heat

Fig. 3. Schematics of the experimental system

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

S.-H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxxxxx

40
Computational results Experimental results

6.45e+01 (oC) 64.50 6.28e+01 6.10e+01 61.05 5.93e+01 5.76e+01 57.60

30

5.59e+01

54.15 5.41e+01
5.24e+01 5.07e+01 50.70 4.90e+01 4.73e+01 47.25 4.55e+01 4.38e+01 43.80 4.21e+01

Tavg-T , C 8

20

40.35 4.04e+01
3.86e+01

10 0 200 400 600


2

3.69e+01 36.90 3.52e+01 3.35e+01 33.45 3.17e+01

Z Y

800

3.00e+01 30.00

q ,W/m

(a) L type (Tavg=61.96 oC)

Fig. 4. Comparison between experimental and computational results

constant. It is difcult to analytically determine the view factor of a radial heat sink, due to the radial arrangement of the ns. Thus, the view factor is calculated by the method of Ellison [9], which was originally applied to rectangular heat sinks, using the average n spacing: that is, bavg = {(2pro/n t) + (2p(ro LL)/n t)}/2. The view factor of this model is found to be F = 0.31. The emissivity is measured as e = 0.1, using a thermal imager (IRBIS 3021-ST). The uncertainty of the average heat sink temperature is less than 0.2 C. The radiation heat transfer rate is calculated using Eq. (8), and is estimated to be about 5% of the total heat transfer rate, due to the low emissivity of the heat sink. Thus, the effect of radiation is relatively small. The heat loss from the insulation is about 1% of the total heat transfer. Fig. 4 shows the temperature difference between the experimental and numerical results in terms of the heat ux applied to the heat sink base. Because the effect of radiation heat transfer is neglected in the simulation, and is appropriately low in the experiments, the agreement between the experimental and numerical data is good. Thus, it is conrmed that the numerical model described in Section 2 can accurately simulate a natural convection ow around a radial heat sink. 4. Results and discussion To choose the optimum reference model, we compare the L model (long n), the LM model (long and middle ns) and the LMS model (long, middle and short ns). Parametric studies and design optimization are carried out for the model exhibiting the best performance. 4.1. Comparison of the L, LM and LMS models The cooling air enters from the outside region of the heat sink, is warmed up between the ns, and then rises upward from the inside region of the heat sink [10]. Thus, the temperature of the cooling air in the outer region of the heat sink is lower than in the inner region of the heat sink. Fig. 5 shows temperature contours on horizontal planes located at the middle of the n height, to compare the L, LM and LMS models. The distance between the ns of a radial heat sink decreases from the outer region to the inner region. As Fig. 5(a) indicates, for the L model, much of the cooling air passing between the ns is held at room temperature in the outer region of the heat sink, due to the relatively thin thermal boundary layer. However, as the cooling air proceeds toward the inner region, the thermal boundary layer develops and the n spacing becomes narrower. Finally, in the inner region of the heat sink, the temperature

6.45e+01 (oC) 64.50 6.28e+01 6.10e+01 61.05 5.93e+01 5.76e+01 57.60 5.59e+01

54.15 5.41e+01
5.24e+01 5.07e+01 50.70 4.90e+01 4.73e+01 47.25 4.55e+01 4.38e+01 43.80 4.21e+01

40.35 4.04e+01
3.86e+01 3.69e+01 36.90 3.52e+01 3.35e+01 33.45 3.17e+01 3.00e+01 30.00

Z Y

(b) LM type (Tavg=57.96 oC)


6.45e+01 (oC) 64.50 6.28e+01 6.10e+01 61.05 5.93e+01 5.76e+01 57.60 5.59e+01

54.15 5.41e+01
5.24e+01 5.07e+01 50.70 4.90e+01 4.73e+01 47.25 4.55e+01 4.38e+01 43.80 4.21e+01

40.35 4.04e+01
3.86e+01 3.69e+01 36.90 3.52e+01 3.35e+01 33.45 3.17e+01 3.00e+01 30.00

Z Y

(c) LMS type (Tavg=63.86 oC)


Fig. 5. Temperature T 1 30  C) contours at y = 0.01 m (ro = 0.075 m, _ q 700 W=m2 ;

difference between the ns and the air decreases, and thus the local heat transfer coefcient is relatively low. When the number of ns increases to enlarge the heat transfer area, the fully developed thermal region appears closer to the outer region of the heat sink, degrading the heat transfer rate. To complement these shortcomings of the L model, the LM and the LMS models are constructed

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

S.-H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxxxxx

by inserting smaller ns between the long ns, as illustrated in Fig. 5((b) and (c)). The purpose of the smaller ns is to intensify the heat transfer rate, rst by developing new thermal boundary layers in the region where the cooling air remains at room temperature in the L model, and, second, by enlarging the heat transfer area. The LMS models gap is too narrow between the ns (Fig. 5(c)). As a result, the thermal boundary layer develops too early (by overheating the cooling air), and the heat transfer rate decreases signicantly. When the number of ns is decreased to obtain a larger gap between the ns, the heat transfer performance is degraded, because of the smaller heat transfer area. By comparing the thermal performance of the three models, the LM model is found to provide the best heat transfer performance. 4.2. Parametric study The parameters of the reference model are NL = NM = 20, ro = 0.075 m, ri = 0.01 m, LL = 0.055 m, LM = 0.015 m, H = 0.0213 m, _ t = 0.002 m, q 700W=m2 , T1 = 30 C. The effects of the number of ns (N = NL = NM), long n length (LL), middle n length (LM), and heat ux on the thermal resistance and average heat transfer rate are analyzed. Here, thermal resistance is dened as follows:

7 2.45

RTH, C/W

havg
2.40

RTH

2.35

0.04 0.035

0.05 0.045

0.06 0.055

LL, m
Fig. 7. The effect of long n length

RTH

1 havg A

Fig. 6 shows the effect of the number of long ns on the thermal resistance and average heat transfer rate. As the number of ns increases, the heat transfer area also increases, but the average heat transfer coefcient decreases, because the inlet area for the cooling air decreases and the ow rate of the cooling air is also reduced. As a result, there is a decrease in the ow rate of the cooler air passing between the ns, and the air is heated more quickly because of the reduced space between the ns. The heat transfer rate is diminished in the inner region of the heat sink. For this model, it is not efcient to reduce the thermal resistance below 2.3 C/W by increasing the number of ns, in view of the thermal performance and the mass of the heat sink. Fig. 7 displays the effect of long n length for xed middle n length. As the length of the long ns increases, the thermal resistance shows a tendency to decrease. Because the n height is held constant, and the inlet area for the cooling air depends only on the number of ns, the ow rate of the cooling air for a xed heat ux and the number of ns does not change signicantly as the long n length varies. However, as the long n length increases, the thermal boundary layers between neighboring ns overlap and become fully developed as the air proceeds through the narrowing n

spaces toward the inner region, as Fig. 5(b) suggests. As a result, when the length of the long ns exceeds 0.05 m, the thermal resistance begins to increase. Thus, it is ineffective to extend the long n length beyond 0.05 m in this test case. Fig. 8 shows the effect of middle n length for xed long n length. As the middle n length increases, the heat transfer area increases, and at the same time thermal boundary layers grow near the middle ns, as Fig. 5(b) indicates. When the length of the middle n is relatively small, these thermal boundary layers do not affect the thermal boundary layers around the long ns. However, when the length of the middle n exceeds 0.035 m, the thermal boundary layers induced by the middle n affect the thermal boundary layers around the long ns, and the growth of these thermal boundary layers is similar to that obtained by increasing the number of ns. As a result, the thermal resistance initially decreases, and then increases as the middle n length increases. This indicates that the proper middle n length must be determined to optimize a heat sink. Fig. 9 displays the effect of the heat ux applied to the heat sink base. As the heat ux increases, the thermal resistance decreases and the heat transfer coefcient increases. The increase in average heat sink temperature due to increasing heat ux resulted in a faster rising air velocity, which increased the ow rate of the cooler air entering from the outside region of the heat sink. Likewise, this enhanced effect of natural convection increases the average heat transfer coefcient. Because the ow rate of the cooling air varies according to the applied heat ux, the optimum middle and long

2.75

2.5

RTH, C/W

havg
5

h avg, W/m K

2.4

RTH
2.25

4 2.3

RTH
0.01 0.005 0.03 0.025 0.04 0.045

2.00 15

20

25

NL
Fig. 6. The effect of number of long ns

LM, m
Fig. 8. The effect of middle ns length

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

h avg, W/m K

RTH, C/W

2.50
o

havg

h avg,W/m K

S.-H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxxxxx

3.0

Table 2 _ Design of experiments (ro = 0.075 m, q 300W=m2 ) Test number Parameters X1 X2 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.035 0.055 0.045 X3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 Response M (kg) 0.179 0.221 0.205 0.260 0.227 0.293 0.268 0.354 0.219 0.282 0.230 0.272 0.216 0.286 0.251 RTH (oC/W) 3.443 2.952 3.002 2.909 3.157 2.969 2.965 3.207 3.067 3.000 2.969 2.946 2.921 2.940 2.904 M/Mref 0.778 0.961 0.891 1.130 0.987 1.274 1.165 1.539 0.952 1.226 1 1.183 0.939 1.243 1.091 RTH/RTH,ref 1.160 0.994 1.011 0.980 1.063 1 0.999 1.080 1.033 1.010 1 0.992 0.984 0.990 0.978

havg

2.5

RTH

2.0

300

500

700

900
2

1100

q, W/m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (Ref) 12 13 14 15

16 24 16 24 16 24 16 24 16 24 20 20 20 20 20

RTH, C/W

Fig. 9. The effect of heat ux

n lengths and number of ns could change. As a result, the optimization of a heat sink must take heat ux into account. 4.3. Optimization To optimize a radial heat sink, the design parameters are selected as the number of ns (X1 = NL = NM), long n length (X2 = LL), and ratio of middle n length to long n length (X3 = LM/LL). The optimization was carried out with respect to heat ux (300, 700, 1100 W/m2) and the radius of the heat sink (0.075, 0.089, 0.102 m) by using a commercial PIDO (Process Integration and Design Optimization) tool, PIAnO (Process Integration, Automation and Optimization) [11]. The objective function and constraints were dened as follows: Find X1, X2, X3

h avg, W/m K

     

Population size: 50 Maximum number of generations: 1000 Violated constraint limit: 0.003 Number of consecutive generations without improvement: 50 Mutation probability: 0.01 Selection probability: 0.15

Pareto optima are obtained with various weighting factors as shown in Table 3. When the ratio of x1 to x2 is greater than 1.8, optimization results do not vary because the change in the value of Rth/Rth,ref is less than the change in the value of M/Mref in Table 2. Namely, natural convection heat transfer does not alter much as
Table 3 2 _ Selected results of Pareto optima (ro = 0.075 m, q 300W=m

to minimize x1

RTH X 1 ; X 2 ; X 3 MX 1 ; X 2 ; X 3 x2 RTH;ref X 1 ; X 2 ; X 3 M ref X 1 ; X 2 ; X 3

x1

x2
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

x1/x2
0.11 0.25 0.43 0.67 1 1.5 2.33 4 9 1

NL 20 20 18 21 19 17 16 16 16 16

LL (m) 0.03503 0.03504 0.03503 0.03504 0.03503 0.03503 0.03503 0.03503 0.03503 0.03503

LM/LL 0.693 0.698 0.692 0.307 0.305 0.304 0.303 0.303 0.303 0.303

M (kg) 0.232 0.232 0.218 0.206 0.195 0.184 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179

Rth (oC/W) 2.855 2.853 2.916 3.012 3.121 3.286 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39

10

subject to 16 6 X 1 ideal number 6 24; 0:035 6 X 2 6 0:055; 0:3 6 X 3 6 0:7


where x1 and x2 are weighting factors. If there are more than two objective functions, weighting factors are given to all objective functions according to their priorities. The mass of the heat sink is calculated as

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Mkg 2800 r2 r2 p t N LL LM H t o i

11

Fifteen experimental cases are selected for optimization, using CCD (Central Composite Design) to create a response surface, as listed in Table 2. Based on the results of parametric studies, optimum number of long ns, long n length and middle n length are 20, 0.045, 0.015 m considering thermal performance and mass. Therefore, the 11th model was chosen as the reference model. A second-order polynomial was used to estimate the full quadratic model for response surface of Rth. Based on the experimental points, the response surface was generated. Optimized values of X1, X2 and X3 were then obtained from the weighted sum of response surface and Eq. (12), using EA (evolutionary algorithm) [12]. In general, EA in this paper allows both discrete (binary coding) and continuous parameters (oating-point representation). Table 2 lists sample _ results for the case when ro = 0.075 m and q 300W=m2 . To validate the accuracy of the response surface, the coefcient of determination (R2) was evaluated and determined as 0.95, indicating a good agreement. The parameters of the evolutionary algorithm are set in this study as follows:

3.5
300 W/m 2

3.0

Rth, C/W

2.5

700 W/m 2

2.0

1100 W/m 2

0.20

0.25

M, kg
_ Fig. 10. Pareto fronts of ro = 0.075 m (q = 300, 700, 1100 W/m2)

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

S.-H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer xxx (2011) xxxxxx

the geometry of heat sink varies, when x1/x2 is large enough. Therefore, it is recommended not to set the ratio of x1 to x2 too high (x1/x2 < 1.8 in this case) when optimizing a radial heat sink under natural convection. Fig. 10 shows Pareto fronts, i.e., the trade-off curve between two objective functions [13,14], when weighting factors are changed with respect to heat ux. As the optimal heat sink mass increases, the corresponding thermal resistance decreases. This result implies that it is impossible to optimize both thermal performance and heat sink mass simultaneously.

Acknowledgment This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (No. 20100008537). References
[1] F. Harahap, D. Setio, Correlation for heat dissipation and natural convection heat-transfer from horizontally based, vertically-nned arrays, Appl. Energy 69 (2001) 273278. [2] R.-T. Huang, W.-J. Sheu, C.-C. Wang, Orientation effect of natural convective performance of square pin n heat sinks, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 51 (2008) 23682376. [3] F. Harahap, H.N. McManus, Natural convection heat transfer from horizontal rectangular n arrays, J. Heat Transfer 89 (1967) 3238. [4] C.D. Jones, L.F. Smith, Optimum arrangement of rectangular ns on horizontal surfaces for free-convection heat transfer, J. Heat Transfer, Trans. ASME 92 (1970) 610. [5] G. Ledezma, A. Bejan, Heat sinks with sloped plate ns in natural and forced convection, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 39 (1996) 17731783. [6] A. Bar-Cohen, M. Iyengar, A.D. Kraus, Design of optimum plate-n natural convective heat sinks, J. Electron. Packaging Trans. ASME 125 (2003) 208216. [7] L. Dialameh, M. Yaghoubi, O. Abouali, Natural convection from an array of horizontal rectangular thick ns with short length, Appl. Therm. Eng. 28 (2008) 23712379. [8] S.V. Patankar, C.H. Liu, E.M. Sparrow, Fully developed ow and heat transfer in ducts having streamwise-periodic variations of cross-sectional area, J. Heat Transfer 99 (1977) 180186. [9] N. Ellison, Thermal computations for electronic equipment, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, Florida, 1989, pp. 121127. [10] S.H. Yu, K.S. Lee, S.J. Yook, Natural convection around a radial heat sink, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 29352938. [11] PIAno (Process Integration, Automation and Optimization) Users manual, Version 3.21, Framax INC., 2010. [12] M.J. Jeong, Integrated Support System for Decision-Making in Design Optimization, PhD Thesis, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, 2003. [13] K. Foli, T. Okabe, M. Olhofer, Y. Jin, B. Sendhoff, Optimization of micro heat exchanger: CFD, analytical approach and multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 49 (2006) 10901099. [14] R. Hilbert, G. Janiga, R. Baron, D. Thvenin, Multi-objective shape optimization of a heat exchanger using parallel genetic algorithms, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 49 (2006) 25672577.

5. Conclusions Numerical analyses were conducted to optimize a radial heat sink adapted to a circular LED light. Experiments were performed to validate the numerical model, and the agreement was good. To determine the optimum model, three types of heat sink (L, LM and LMS models) were compared and the LM model exhibited superior thermal performance. Parametric studies were performed to compare the effects of three geometric parameters (number of long ns, long n length and middle n length) and an operating parameter (heat ux) on the thermal resistance and average heat transfer coefcient for the heat sink array. As the number of long ns, middle n length and long n length increased, the thermal resistance and average heat transfer coefcient decreased. It was found that optimum values of the geometric parameters existed for maximizing heat transfer performance, i.e., minimizing thermal resistance. Finally, the heat sink geometry (number of long ns, long n length and n length ratio) was optimized using a CCD and an EA. By varying weighting factors, Pareto front was investigated with respect to heat ux. Pareto front showed trade-off between minimal thermal resistance and minimal mass of heat sink. It was found that it was impossible to optimize both thermal performance and heat sink mass at the same time, and there existed upper limit to the ratio of weighting factors (x1/x2).

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