832 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, HYBRIDS, AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 15, NO.

5, OCTOBER 1992

Heat Sink Optimization with Application

to Microchannels
Roy W. Knight, Donald J. Hall, John S. Goodling, and Richard C. Jaeger, Fellow, IEEE

Abstruct- The equations governing the fluid dynamics and Total mass flow rate of coolant through
combined conduction/convection heat transfer in a heat sink are channels.
presented in dimensionless form for both laminar and turbulent Number of cooling channels.
flow. A scheme presented for solving these equations e nables Pressure difference number, ( Ap/ L) W3/ (p u 2 ) .
the determination of heat sink dimensions that display the lowest Work rate number, tbW/ (pu3).
thermal resistance between the hottest portion of the heat sink
and the incoming fluid. Nusselt number, h D h / k f i u i d .
Results from the present method are applied to heat sinks Nusselt number for fully developed flow.
reported by previous investigators mckerman and Pease [l], Fin perimeter.
[2], Goldberg [3], and Phillips [4], [ 5 ] ) to study effects of their re- Pressure drop through the heat sink channels.
strictions regarding the nature of the flow (laminar or turbulent), Prandtl number, u / a .
the ratio of fin thickness to channel width, or the aspect ratio of Heat source power.
the fluid channel. Present results indicate that when the pressure Reynolds number based on hydraulic diameter.
drop through the channels is small, laminar solutions yield lower Temperature.
thermal resistance than turbulent solutions. Conversely, when the Largest temperature difference between coolant
pressure drop is large, the optimal thermal resistance is found and source.
in the turbulent region. With the relaxation of these constraints, Improvement in thermal resistance.
configurations and dimensions found using the present procedure Mean fluid velocity.
produce significant improvement in thermal resistance over those Volumetric flow rate.
presented by all three previous studies. These improvements
range from 10 to 35% in values for design thermal resistance. Pumping power.
Width of heat sink.
width of channel, I?.
NOMENCLATURE Width of fin, re.

Greek Symbols
A Area. Q Thermal diffusivity of fluid or aspect ratio.
B Constant defined in (31). P Percent of infinite fin performance.
C Constant defined in (32). 71 Coefficient defined by (24).
CP Specific heat at constant pressure. r Ratio of fin thickness to channel width.
C1 +
Coefficient defined as n r ( n - 1). rl Fin efficiency.
D Depth of heat sink. e Thermal resistance, AT/q.
De, Equivalent laminar diameter of the fluid flow 0 Dimensionless thermal resistance,
channel. (AT/Q)/huidW.
Dh Hydraulic diameter of the fluid flow channel. U Kinematic viscosity of fluid.
f Friction factor. P Mass density.
G Parameter defined in (23).
h Heat transfer coefficient. Subscripts
k Thermal conductivity. base Fin base.
e Channel width. C Cross sectional available for flow.
L Length of heat sink in the direction of fluid flow. C, fin Cross-sectional of fin.
m ch Channel.
[(hPfin/kfinAc,fin)] 1'2*
f,i Fluid inlet.
f ,o Fluid outlet.
Manuscript received August 31, 1991; revised June 25, 1992. This work
was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant CBT-8805607,
fin Fin.
by the Alabama Microelectronics Science and Technology Center of Aubum fluid Fluid.
University, and by the Alabama Research Institute under Grant ARI-90-201. h Hydraulic.
R. W. Knight and J. S. Goodling are with the Mechanical Engineering De- S Surface available for heat transfer.
partment and the Alabama Microelectronics Science and Technology Center, S, i Surface at the fluid inlet face.
Auburn University, Aubum, AL 36849. Surface at the fluid outlet face.
D. J. Hall was with the Mechanical Engineering Department, Aubum
s,o
University, Auburn, AL. He is now with Compaq Computers, Houston, TX
77070.
R. C. Jaeger is with the Electrical Engineering Department and the Alabama I. INTRODUCTION
Microelectronics Science and Technology Center, Aubum University, Auburn,
AL 36849.
IEEE Log Number 9202704. T HE advent of high density components has required
investigation of innovative techniques for removing heat
01484411/92$03.00 0 1992 IEEE
KNIGHT et al.: HEAT SINK OPTIMIZATION 833

from these devices [l]. One method is through the use of Sasaki and Kishimoto [7] optimized the channel dimensions
forced convection heat spreaders called a heat sinks. This paper of a finned heat sink constructed on a silicon chip for a given
is inspired by the pioneering heat sink work offered first by pressure drop. The Wch/Wfin ratio again was restricted to
Tuckerman and Pease [l] , wherein they reported a method unity, and the optimal channel widths were found to be 400
for cooling a chip by forcing coolant through closed channels and 250 pm for a pressure drop of 200 and 2000 kg/m2,
etched onto the backside of a silicon wafer. They observed respectively, again subject to the laminar flow constraint. The
that for laminar flow in a channel, the heat transfer coefficientexperimental results were claimed to match the analysis well;
is inversely proportional to the channel width. A minimum in however, the latter was not presented.
the thermal resistance expression was used to size the coolant Kishimoto and Ohsaki [8] discussed a packaging technique
channels subject to several restrictions. A sample heat sink was wherein VLSI chips are mounted on a multilayered alumna
fabricated and tested with a resulting modest chip temperature substrate. Coolant channels (800 pm wide by 400 pm high)
rise above ambient for very high flux levels of thermal input. were made in the substrate at a staggered pitch of 2.54 mm. A
This paper serves to show that, under certain circumstances, thermal resistance of O.3l0C/W was obtained for a pressure
conditions imposed in previous studies are not desirable in drop of 19.6 kPa and flowrate of 1 L/min of water.
optimizing the fin configurations subject to a specified pres- Hwang et al. [9] designed a multichip, water cooled module
sure drop through the heat sink channels. Since the problem suitable for VLSI packaging. An analytically designed 25 chip
presented here lends itself to generalization through nondimen- module was modeled by a 9 chip experimental module with
sionalization, the technique described herein is applicable to the coolant flow rate scaled to match the 25 chip model. The
any closed, forced convection heat exchanger. laminar and turbulent flow regimes were considered with the
latter yielding the least thermal resistance. The turbulent case
yielded a maximum temperature rise per chip of 18C at a
11. REVIEWOF LITERATURE chip power level of 42 W. A pressure drop of 55.2 kPa with a
In the original work by Tuckerman and Pease [l], the flow rate of 126 cm3/s was experienced through the heat sink
optimization of the heat sink design was done subject to with channel dimensions of 5870 pm wide by 1000 pm high,
several constraints: the flow through the channels was fully separated by a wall 1270 pm thick. This design is significantly
developed and laminar in nature; the laminar Nusselt number different from the fin concept utilized in this paper because the
and the channel to fin width ratio (W&/Wfin) were fixed, as channels are parallel to the heat source instead of perpendicular
were the pressure drop through the fin array, pumping work, to it.
planar dimensions, and fin efficiency. Subject to the designed Phillips [4] reported an innovative design method for water
dimensions, a heat sink was constructed in a silicon wafer and cooled, microchannel heat sinks in which both laminar and
a heat flux of 790 W/cm2 was achieved with a temperature turbulent flow regimes were considered for hydrodynami-
rise of 71C using water as the coolant. cally developing and thermally fully developed flow where
Since that landmark paper, many studies have been pub- restrictions were placed only on the Wch/Wfin ratio and the
lished using a similar optimization technique, but with few aspect ratio. All assumptions made by Phillips are thoroughly
variations on the constraints. Most notably are the works of discussed in his paper. Most results are presented pictorially
Goldberg [3], Mahalingam [6], Sasaki and Kishimoto [7], with thermal resistances displayed as a function of channel
Kishimoto and Ohsaki [8] Hwang et al. [9] and Phillips [4]. width. For the test case presented, the design which allowed
With the exception of the latter two referenced works, all were turbulent flow yielded the smallest thermal resistance.
iterations on the theme set forth by the Tuckerman and Pease Bar-Cohen and Jelinek [lo] optimized arrays of air cooled
[ l ] and showed that such a design has practical applications rectangular fins to maximize heat transfer or minimize fin
and can in fact be implemented. mass. In their scheme, fin material, air flow rate, available
Goldberg [3] constructed three air cooled, forced convection pressure head, and either the fin depth or thickness is specified,
heat sinks and tested each one. Each heat sink had a different and the remaining fin dimension (depth or thickness) and
fin thickness, with the Wch/Wfin ratio restricted to unity, and number of fins are determined by a computerized search
the flow limited to the laminar regime. The air flow for each procedure. In this manner, optimal designs of two air cooled
heat sink was adjusted to provide a rate of 30 L/min. As fin systems are reported.
expected, the design with the largest pressure drop and smallest Landram [ l l ] identified optimal configurations of heat sinks
channel width yielded the smallest thermal resistance. by the use of a computational scheme. The temperature profiles
Mahalingam [6] constructed a microchannel heat sink in for both the cooling fluid and the conductive heat sink were
a 5 cm by 5 cm by 0.20 cm silicon substrate. The channels simultaneously determined. Optimal designs were found to
were about 200 pm wide with a depth of 1700 pm, separated be strong functions of coolant to wall thermal conductivity
by a 100 bm fin. A 3.8 cm by 3.8 cm thin film heat source ratio and channel aspect ratio. The flow considered was fully
was mounted on the topside and experiments were carried out developed and laminar in nature.
using water and air as coolants. The water experiments, at a In a recent publication, Knight, Goodling, and Hall [12]
flux of 1100 W , yielded thermal resistances of O.O3C/Wand present an optimization method for sizing coolant channels
O.O2OC/W for flow rates of 12cm3/s and 63 cm3/s, respec- for a given pressure drop or pumping power, given pla-
tively. Results for the air experiments were also presented, but nar dimensions, specified fin efficiency or fin length, and
yielded higher thermal resistances, as expected. coolant and solid properties. The governing equations were
-
834 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, HYBRIDS, AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 15, NO. 5, OCTOBER 1992
Fig. 1. Schematic of the fin system.
made dimensionless, and characteristic groups (not unlike
the Reynolds number) were formed. An analytical solution
was presented for the idealized case of infinitesimally thin
fins which showed that the optimal turbulent case offers
significantly better thermal resistance than the optimal laminar
flow for some pressure drops. The optimization technique is
then applied to a heat sink with fins of finite thickness with
some simplifying assumptions, most notably of which is that
of fully developed flow. The design technique is applied to the
designs of Tuckerman and Pease, and Goldberg. In that same
paper [12], it was shown that the optimal solution occurs in
the laminar regime when the pressure drop through the fin
array is low and in the turbulent region when that pressure
drop is high.
In this paper, the optimization method delineated in [12]
is further generalized and includes developing flow and better
heat transfer correlations. Results using the present method are
compared to those of three previous investigations.
111. THE MODEL
A schematic of the modeled heat sink being considered is
shown in Fig. 1. It consists of a flat rectangular energy source
with a series of channels and fins extending from a base plate.
The structure has n channels and ( n- 1) fins. The tips of the
fins are insulated with a flat plate used solely for containing
the coolant flow.
The equations presented in the following show that once
certain variables are specified, the number of fins and the
fin channel width ratio can be found such that the thermal
resistance between the hottest point on the heat source and the
coldest point in the coolant is a minimum. The factors to be
specified are:
1) the thermal conductivity of the material used for the
heat sink;
2) the maximum allowable planar size ( L by W ) of the
heat sink;
3) the properties of the coolant used ( p , c p ,v,Pr, Icfluid);
4) the maximum allowable pressure drop and/or pumping
work used;
5 ) the desired fraction of infinite fin performance or spec-
ified fin length.
The first three require no elaboration in that the emphasis
here is on the fin and channel geometry. Regarding condition
4), it was shown by [12] that if the design is constrained
by the maximum allowable pressure drop through the fins,
T
AT
Length
Fig. 2. Temperature variation in a constant flux heat exchanger.
then the device with the minimum thermal resistance could
require a pumping power which is comparable in magnitude
to the amount of heat dissipated in the heat source. This high
pumping power requirement is due to the high volumetric flow
rates found for a minimum thermal resistance. Since such
a solution is undesirable, a upper limit on pumping power
is advisable in the optimization scheme. Condition 5) is a
convenient option in the design procedure.
The heat sink can be analyzed as a two-dimensional flow
through narrow rectangular channels with a constant heat flux
boundary condition at the base of the fins. Temperature profiles
in the L-direction for the heat sink and coolant are shown in
Fig. 2, if the heat transfer coefficient is assumed constant.
The temperature difference between the solid heat source
and the bulk fluid is the same at any plane in the L direction
(Fig. 2). Thus the total heat transfer rate equivalent to the
electrical circuit power is written as
hAS(Tsp- Tf,o).
q = h&(Ts,, - Tf,%)= (1)
This relation holds true even if the heat transfer coefficient is
spatially variable, as long as the average value of h is used in
(1).Furthermore, this same amount of power is transferred to
the fluid and is expressed by
4 = +&,o - TfJ. (2)
These two equations, written in the standard notation of heat
exchanger terminology [13], are combined to yield thermal
resistance defined as the maximum temperature difference
between the source and coolant AT = (Ts,o - T f , * )divided
by the electrical power of the source.
(3)
The two terms on the right side of (3) are referred to
as the convective resistance and capacity resistance terms,
respectively, in heat exchanger terminology. The latter was
designated the caloric resistance by Tuckerman and Pease.
 835
KNIGHT et al.: HEAT SINK OPTIMIZATION

IV. DIMENSIONLESS
PARAMETERS friction and heat transfer coefficient are written in terms of
two parameters; the hydraulic diameter, Dh, which for one
As with many important problems, the use of dimensionless
channel is expressed as
groups generalizes the problem and allows for scaling to any
physical dimension. In a previous paper [12], each of the 2w
Dh =
appropriate groups for this paper were presented in algebraic n + r(n +
- 1) ( W I D )
detail. Each is briefly reviewed here.
and the fluid flow channel aspect ratio
Equation (3) with the usual dimensions of thermal resistance
(degree per watt) when multiplied by kfiuidW becomes an -D_ - n + r ( n - l ) (9)
expression for dimensionless thermal resistance: c WID .
AT
e=------ - kfluidw kfluidw
+-T--. (4)
The frontal cross-sectional area available for coolant flow in
hAS mcP the heat sink A, becomes
nWD
A -
A dimensionless group, N A ~is, related to the maximum +
,- n r ( n - 1)
allowable pressure drop experienced over the length of the while the surface area available for heat transfer,A,, is written
heat sink. This pressure drop is dictated by the coolant pump as:
or fan capacity and is defined as
nWL
+ 2qDL(n - 1).
Nap = -.
p 1 ~ 3 (5)
As =
+
n r ( n - 1)
(11)

PV2
For realistic pressure drops through microchips, this number
is typically of order lo8 to
Another group, Nwork,represents the amount of pumping
work used by a specified coolant pump or fan. It is defined as
(6)
If only Nap is specified for a given design, the pumping
work required to attain minimum thermal resistance might
exceed the cooling required of the heat source, which is under
many circumstances unacceptable. Thus the procedure re-
quired that this parameter have an upper bound. By definition,
Nap and Nworkare related as follows.
Some other applicable dimensionless groups commonly
used in heat transfer andfluid dynamics studies are the:
UmDh
Reynolds number: ReDh = ~
The first term is the area available for heat transfer at the base
and between the channels. The second term is the effective fin
area with the fin efficiency included.
V. FIN EQUATIONS
Heat transfer enhancement due to the presence of fins can
be quantified with the assumptions of one-dimensional con-
duction along the fin length only, constant material properties,
constant heat transfer coefficient, no radiation, and uniform fin
base temperature. First, a convenient grouping of terms, m,is
defined.
The approximate equality results from the assumption that
L >> ri.
There are at least two methods of quantifying the degree
to which fins enhance heat transfer. The first is through the
use of fin efficiency, defined as the ratio of actual fin heat
transfer to that of a similarly shaped fin with infinite thermal
conductivity. For straight rectangular fins of uniform cross

v sections and insulated tips, the actual fin heat transfer can
hDh be found analytically [13] as
Nusselt number: NUDh = -
kfluid

Prandtl number: Pr=

N
while the heat transfer of the ideal fin with infinite conductivity
friction factor: is

Additional groups relevant to this paper are the thermal
conductivity ratio kfluid/kfin; ratio of fin width to channel
width r = Wfin/Wch, the aspect ratio cy = D / l , the heat
sink length to width ratio L I W and the heat sink depth to
width ratio D I W .
As a matter of convenience, other geometrical parameters
are expressed through those described previously. For inter-
nally confined fluid flow and heat transfer, the expressions for
The ratio of these two expressions forms the fin efficiency.
tanh (mD)
rl= mD . (15)
A second method follows the concept set forth by Tucker-
man and Pease wherein performance was defined by the ratio
of actual heat transfer of a fin of finite length compared to that
836 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, HYBRIDS, AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 15, NO. 5, OCTOBER 1992

of a fin made of the same material and having the same cross A. Laminar Flow
section, but of infinite length. The infinitely long fin transfers For fully developed laminar flow, f can be expressed
heat according to the following relation: analytically as a simple function of Reo,.

f=-. 71
Reo,
The ratio of these is The value of 71 is determined from the aspect ratio of a given
,h' = tanh(mD). channel. Bejan [14] defined a parameter G as:
(17)

Equation (11) incorporates the symbol q, fin efficiency as

defined in (15), as a convenient way of expressing effective
G = ([lo)'
(l/D ++1)'1 '
(23)

fin heat transfer area. Equation (17) is also used in the current
optimization scheme. A least squares fit of a straight line in G to available values
Once a value of 77 or p is specified, m D can be found from for 71 yields
(15) or (17). Using geometric relations and the definition of
Nusselt number in (12) yields the following relation: 71 = 4.70 + 19.64G. (24)

(mD)2 = Nuoh(kfluidlkfin)
["' ~ I &~[ ~ ' 1 (I8)
Equation (24) agrees with exact values [15] within 23%.
Algebraic combination of (20)-(22) along with the definitions
of NAP and Dh allow for the Reynolds number to be expressed
as a function of the NAP and other parameters that are a
which can be rewritten as a quadratic equation in D / W function of the geometry only:

+
where C1 is defined as n r(n - 1).Consequently (19) can
be readily solved for dimensionless fin length.
VI. HEAT TRANSFER
The fins shown in Fig. 1 are cooled by forcing a fluid
through the channels formed by adjacent fins. Depending on
the value of the Reynolds number, this forced convective flow
is either laminar or turbulent in nature, or it will be in transition
from the former to the latter. The magnitudes of pressure drop
and the heat transfer coefficient depend on which of these
regimes the flow is in.
The Reynolds number is defined as:
The heat transfer coefficient, h, is obtained from the Nusselt
number. It is a function only of the channel aspect ratio. The
parameter, G, used in computing the friction factor is .used
again. As before, a least squares fit to the available exact
values gives
NuD,, = -1.047 + 9.326G. (26)
Equation (26) agrees well with analytical results [15].
Laminar dimensionless capacity and convective thermal
resistances are formulated respectively as

and
where U,,, is the mean velocity, Dh is the hydraulic equivalent
diameter of the enclosed conduit, and v is the kinematic kfluidW-
viscosity of the coolant. The generally accepted value of the hA,-
Reynolds number for internal duct flow at which the transition 2C1
from laminar to turbulent flow begins is Reo, E 2300 [13]. (28)
NuD,(L/W)[C1 + (w/D)l[n + 2q(D/w)(n - l ) c l ]
For the flow to be assured turbulent, Reo, - 2 4000. The
transitional regime exists between these two values.
Pressure drop can be obtained through the definition of a
where C1 = n + r(n - 1).
Dimensionless work, Nwork, is expressed as an explicit
dimensionless Fanning friction factor: function of dimensionless pressure drop, Nap, as follows:
KNIGHT et al.: HEAT SINK OF'TIMIZATION 837

B. Turbulent Flow As with velocity profiles, the thermal profiles must also de-
When flow originates from a reservoir or manifold to velop from the entrance downstream. For thermally developing
be channelled downstream as is the case here, the velocity Zukauskus [191 Offers the
profiles will grow to their final steady-state form some distance
downstream from the entrance. For this hydrodynamically
developing turbulent flow, Phillips [4] recommends a friction
factor of the form
5
Nu,
= + o.48(L/Dh)-0.25

. exp (-0.17LIDh)
[ +
d m
3600 1 (37)
f = B ReC (30)
which is valid for 4000 5 ReDh 5 5 X lo5, 0.7 5
where Pr 5 1.0; and L/Dh 2 0.06. The fully developed Nusselt
1.01612
B = 0.09290 + ~
(31) number is Nu,.
(LIDh) For thermally developing turbulent flow using coolants with
and Prandtl numbers not covered by the Zukauskus correlation,
0.31930 the Gneilinski equation for thermally developing flow is used.
C = -0.26800 - -. (32) Gneilinski [18] offers the correlation
(L/Dh)

When L/Dh becomes large, (30) yields values similar to those

found by other investigators for fully developed turbulent flow
[16]. Equation (30) is valid for 2300 5 Re 5 28000 and is
used for hydrodynamically developing turbulent flow in this
which is valid for 2300 5 ReDh 5 lo6; and 0.6 5 Pr 5 lo5.
paper. This correlation does not include the effects of ReDh or Pr.
Equation (30) is for round enclosures. Jones [17] recom- For thermally developing turbulent flow (37) is used for gases
mended that an equivalent diameter (Des) should be used in
(low Prandtl Number fluids) and (38) for liquids (high Prandtl
lieu of the hydraulic diameter (Dh) for rectangular ducts. The
Number fluids).
expression for their ratio developed by [17] is
The dimensionless capacity and convective thermal resis-
tances for turbulent flow are written, respectively, as

This is valid when the channel aspect ratio, l / D , is less than

one. The equivalent diameter concept used in circular duct
correlations reduces the scatter of rectangular duct, turbulent
flow friction factors from 520% to 25% [16]. and
Once a friction factor is determined from the pressure drop kfluid-
~
and geometry, the mean velocity and the Reynolds number can
be found. When f is written in the form of (30), U , becomes
hA,-
2C1
(40)
1
NuDh(L/W)[Cl + (w/D)][n + 2'dD/W)(n - l)C11'

[ ]
[%]Dr-c)vc a+c
(34) As was done for laminar flow, an expression for the relation-
2pB '
ship between N a p and Nworkfor turbulent flow is derived:
From the definition of the Reynolds number, hydraulic diame-
Nwork = N ~ ~ ( L / W ) ( D / W ) ( ~ / C+
~ (W/D)]}-1/2.
){~[~
ter, and (34), an expression for the turbulent Reynolds number
is written as (41)

Table I is a recapitulation of the applicable equations

There exists a multitude of heat transfer correlations for
turbulent flow in enclosures. The Gneilinski equation for
hydrodynamically developed turbulent flow [181 is chosen here
due to its excellent corroboration with experimental data [161.
( f / 2 ) ( R e ~ ,- 1000) Pr
Nu, = (36)
1.0 +1 2 . 7 0 (Pr2l3 - 1)
for designing a heat sink. For any given n r, mD, and
maximum allowable N a p , Nworkand dimensionless fin length
( D I W ) , there are five unknowns to be found: Reynolds
number, friction factor, Nusselt number, actual fin length, and
actual N a p or Nwork.The unknowns are found from the
simultaneous , iterative solution of the five nonlinear equations
for friction factor, Reynolds number, Nusselt number, fin
length relation, and pumping work given in the table. The
solution method is delineated in the following.
The solution procedure for laminar flow for a given n, I?,
mD, and maximum allowable N a p , Nwork,and D/W is as
follows.
838 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, HYBRIDS, AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 15, NO. 5, OCTOBER 1992

TABLE I
EQUATIONS
FOR THE OF'TIMlZATlON OF HEATSINK DESIGN

Heat Sink Relations

Laminar: f = e:=
eDh
y1 4.70 + 19.646: 6= (f/D+l)

Friction Factor
Turbulent: f = B Rebh: B = 0.09290 + w: C = -0.26800 - (LIDh)

Laminar: R ~ D ,= (4/*,1 ).vA,[n + r ( n - 1)+ ( u - / D ) ] - ~

Reynolds Number
1
Turbulent: Reo, = { ( 4 / B ) > V ~ , l n + r(n - 1) + (W'/D)]-'}=

Laminar: Kunh = -1.047 + 9.3266

Turbulent: Xu, =
(f/z)[.e., -inon
1 0+12 7 @ [ P r 2 / 3 - 1 ]
1
~r

Nusselt Number

Fin Length Relation

Capacity Thermal
Resistance

Convective Thermal
Resistance
I

Assume a D / W and N a p . Maximum allowable val-
ues are convenient starting points.
Find t/Dh from (9).
Find G from (23).
Use (24) to find 71.
Calculate the Reynolds number from (25). The re-
sulting Reynolds number is checked to ensure that it
falls in the range of applicability for the laminar flow
correlations used here.
Use (29) to find N w o r k . If Nwork exceeds the maxi-
mum allowable value, solve (29) for the N a p value
which results in the maximum allowable Nwork. If
N a p is changed here, return to step L5).
Calculate the Nusselt number from (26).
Solve (19) for D / W . If D / W exceeds the maximum
allowable value, use the maximum allowable D / W .
L9) Repeat steps L2)-L8) until D / W and Nap are
converged.
L10) Calculate convective resistance from (40), capacity
resistance from (39), and sum them to obtain total
thermal resistance.
Steps L1)-LlO) are repeated for a wide range of n and r
values, and the geometry resulting in laminar flow which yields
the minimum laminar thermal resistance is found.
The solution procedure for turbulent flow for a given n, r,
m D , and maximum allowable N a p , Nwork, and D / W is as
follows.
T1) Assume a D/Wand N a p . Maximum allowable val-
ues are convenient starting points.
T2) Find L/Dh from (8).
T3) Find B and C from (31) and (32).
KNIGHT et al.: HEAT SINK OPTIMIZATION 839

Researcher R r kPa (in

H20)
til, Watt ir, liter/min A@

I
Goldberg 25 1 1.17 (4.68) 0.583 30 -
c ~ ~ \ ! ~ ~ f ~Present
~ Study
s same Ap 0.435 1.17 (4.68) 1.747 89.9 32.4%
Present Study same U: 0.390 0.73 (2.92) 0.583 48.2 15.4%

I
c ~ = l ~ , ~ Present
~ ~ Study
Goldberg
s same A p
Present Study same U

Goldberg
12.5 1
0.315
0.390

1
0.29 (1.17)
0.29 (1.17)
0.26 (1.06)

0.047 (0.19)
0.146
0.239
0.146

0.024
30
49.2
32.8

30
-
18.4%
11.4%

-
Present Study same Ap 0.250 0.047 (0.19) 0.018 22.4 38.6%
c a ~ = l ~ , ~ ~ ~ s 0.075 (0.30) 0.024 19.1 46.2%
Present Study same U. 0.320

Calculate the Reynolds number from (35). The re-
sulting Reynolds number is checked to ensure that
it falls in the range of applicability for the turbulent
flow correlations used here.
Find friction factor from (30).
Use (41) to wind Nwork. If Nwork exceeds the max-
imum allowable value, solve (41) for the N a p value
which results in the maximum allowable Nwork.If
Nap is changed here, return to step T4).
Calculate the Nusselt number from (33), (36) and (37)
or (38).
Solve (19) for D / W . If D/W exceeds the maximum
allowable value, use the maximum allowable D /W .
Repeat steps T2)-T8) until D / W and N a p are
converged.
Calculate convective resistance from (40), capacity
resistance from (39), and sum them to obtain total
thermal resistance.
Steps Tl)-T10) are repeated for a wide range of n and r
values, and the geometry resulting in turbulent flow which
gives the minimum turbulent thermal resistance is found.
The geometry yielding the minimum thermal resistance,
considering both laminar and turbulent flow, can be determined
from a comparison of the laminar and turbulent thermal
resistances.
VII. RESULTS
The optimization scheme described previously was applied
to three published studies; one by Goldberg [3] where air
cooled, copper heat sinks were designed and tested; one by
Tuckerman and Pease [ l ] using a laminar flow, water cooled,
silicon heat sink; and one by Phillips [4] which was also a
water cooled, silicon heat sink designed without the laminar
flow restriction. In all three of these cases, the original authors
restricted the channel to fin width ratio (r)to unity. Further
a (the aspect ratio of the coolant channels) was fixed in both
Goldbergs and Phillips studies. The results presented here
show notable improvement in the performance of the heat sink
by relaxation of the previously imposed restrictions.
Goldberg designed, built, and tested three narrow channel
forced convection copper heat sinks cooled by room tempera-
ture air. The size of the square heat source was 0.635 cm by
0.635 cm (1/4 by 1/4 in) with a fixed fin length of 1.27 cm
(1/2 in). The designs by Goldberg mandated a flow rate of 30
L/min, thereby establishing the capacity component of thermal
resistance. The heat sink designs were not optimized, but rather
the channel and fin thicknesses were systematically varied at
values of 5 , 10 and 25 mils (corresponding to 0.127, 0.254,
and 0.635 mm and aspect ratios of a = 100, 50, and 20).
The most severe restrictions were mandatory laminar flow and
r = 1. In Goldbergs design procedure the Nusselt number
was fixed at a value of eight. When the restrictions of a
volumetric flow rate of 30 L/min, Nusselt number of eight,
and the geometries specified by Goldberg are examined in (3)
or (4), the obtained predicted thermal resistances agree with
those found by Goldberg.
In the present analysis, the overall heat sink dimensions of
Goldbergs design were kept, but those regarding fixed r, a,
N u D h , flow regime and volumetric flow rate were relaxed. The
results for each case are presented in Table 11. For each of the
three cases compared, the best design was determined either at
the same pressure drop through the device or the same power
consumed by the fan as those set or measured by Goldberg. In
each case, the optimal solution occurred in the laminar region
due to the allowable pressure drops. Likewise, the choice of
value was significantly less than unity. The last column in
the table indicates that significant improvement in the optimal
design (11-39% in thermal resistance) is achieved when the
r = 1 restriction is dropped. These results show that this
condition is neither necessary nor desirable.
Tuckerman and Pease designed, built, and tested a 1 cm
by 1 cm water cooled silicon, microchannel heat sink. Their
optimization procedure included assumptions of laminar flow,
fixed pressure drop through the heat sink, r = 1, a fully
developed and fixed Nusselt number ( N u D ~ = ) 6, p = 0.76,
and a friction factor for infinite parallel plates (71= 96).
Their study indicated that the best design occurred with
channel widths of 57 pm and channel depths of 365 pm
for the pressure drop considered. At a power level of 790
W/cm2 through the heat spreader, a resulting AT of 71OC
was measured. Pumping power was 0.3% of dissipation, or
2.27 W (corresponding to 11 cm3/s flow rate at 206.8 kPa,
or 30 lbf/in2 pressure drop). In a previous study by Knight
et al. [12], the optimal laminar flow design under the above
840 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, HYBRIDS, AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 15, NO. 5, OCTOBER 1992

TABLE 111
COMPARISON RESULTSTO THOSEOF TUCKERMAN
OF PRESENT AND PEASE[ l ]

Tuckerman and Pease Present Study

~~ ~

CONSTRAINTS
1 cm x 1 cm same
Size, Length (L) by Width (W)
206.8 kPa same
pressure drop, Ap
76% unrestricted
% infinite fin performance, 3
unrestricted 365
Fin length, pm
water same
Coolant
3.71 same
Prandtl number, Pr
Silicon same
Fin Material
0.00464 same
kfluldlkfin unrestricted
Fin to channel thickness ratio, r' 1
6 unrestricted
Nusselt Number
laminar laminar or turbulent
Type of flow
-fl, laminar friction factor 96 not applicable

DIMENSIONLESS GROUPS
1 same
2.82 x 10" same
3.62 x 1013 unrestricted

CALCULATED RESULTS Laminar Turbulent

88 22
n , number of channels
Depth, D , pm 365 365
Fin to channel width ratio, r' 1 0.215
Fin thickness, pm 57 81
51 317
Channel thickness, pm
Reynolds Number 730 8459
11 59.2
Volumetric Flow Rate, cm3/s
Aspect Ratio, cy 6.4 0.97
Nusselt Number 6 85.6
Laminar friction factor - r i 96 not applicable
2.82 x 10'' 2.82 x 10"
1Y'A p
3.62 x 1013 1.95 x 1014
AVwork

Capacity Thermal Res, -C/W 0.022 0.006

Convective Thermal Res, OC/W 0.064 0.050
Total Thermal Resistance, "C/W 0.086 0.056
Change in Thermal Resistance, A@ 35%

restrictions was obtained using the design method reported in
this paper. The obtained dimensions and results were all within
5% of those obtained by Tuckerman and Pease.
In the present paper, the pressure drop and overall package
dimensions (planar dimensions of heater and fin length) were
maintained the same while the restrictions on the state of flow
development (fully) and the values of I?, yl, and NuDh were
relaxed in order to find optimal channel and fin dimensions.
An optimal solution for turbulent flow was sought. Table 111
is a presentation of results.
When turbulent flow is allowed, the thermal resistance is
reduced by 35% from that of Tuckerman and Pease. The
relatively wide channels found for the best turbulent solu-
tion allow, for fixed pressure drop and same fin height, a
greatly increased mass flow, thereby significantly reducing the
capacity resistance term. Likewise, the heat transfer coefficient
increases due to the presence of turbulence, reducing the
convective term by 22%.
A maximum pressure drop of 206.8 kPa (30/bf/in2) is
common to both cases. Pumping power for the turbulent case is
increased to 12.2 W or 1.6% of heater power, still a negligible
amount.
The results here differ from those presented previously
[12]; not in the magnitude of improvement but rather in
the heat sink design configuration. This is due primarily
to the inclusion of developing flow for both the fluid flow
and heat transfer equations. The current modeling program
now includes developing turbulent flow, a laminar equivalent
hydraulic diameter, and a better correlation for turbulent heat
transfer in rectangular channels.
Fig. 3 graphically quantifies the influence these limitations
have on the optimal thermal design of heat sinks. Three sets
of dimensionless thermal resistance values are plotted as a
function of number of channels, n. Common to all are the
materials, fluids, pressure drop, and overall dimensions of
the heat sink (1 cm by 1 cm by 365 pm fin length) used
by Tuckerman and Pease [l].The equations employed for
analyses are those presented in Table I.
A dashed line is drawn for flow with r = 1. The optimum
in the laminar regime occurs at n = 93, a value close to that
found by [l],the difference being due to the laminar Nusselt
number in this paper being variable with aspect ratio. The solid
line in the laminar regime is drawn with the J? restraint lifted
and results in a 17% improvement in thermal performance
KNIGHT et al.: HEAT SINK OPTIMIZATION 841

TABLE IV
OF PRESENTRESULTSTO THE WORK
COMPARISON OF PHILLIPS [4]

Phillips Present Study

CONSTRAINTS
Size, Length ( L ) by Width ( W ) 1 cm x 1 cm same
pressure drop, Ap 68.9 kPa same
Aspect Ratio 4.0 unspecified
Fin Length, microns unspecified 1889
Coolant water same
Fin Material Silicon same
Fin to channel thickness ratio, r 1 unrestricted
Nusselt Number Correlation (37). same
Type of flow laminar or turbulent same

DIMENSIONLESS GROUPS
L/W 1 same
Maximum Nhp 8.86 x lo9 same
Maximum Nwork 1.45 x 1014 same

CALCULATED RESULTS
n, number of channels 11 19
Depth, D , pm 1889 1889
Fin to channel width ratio, r 1 0.66
Fin thickness, pm 472.1 215
Channel thickness, pm 472.1 323
Volumetric Flow Rate, cm3/s 145 145
NAP 8.86 x lo9 8.86 x IO9
Nwork 1.45 x 1014 1.45 x 1014

Capacity Thermal Res, "C/W 0.0016 0.0016

Convective Thermal Res, "C/W 0.064 0.049
Total Thermal Resistance, "C/W 0.066 0.052
Change in Thermal Resistance, A 0 21%

0.0010 The dotted lines in Fig. 3 shows the value of J? which

0. r=i yielded the lowest thermal resistance for a given n. The slope
0.0009 0 , r=Optimum of these lines is seen to change sharply near an n value of
Optimum
0.0008 1 \ /
/ 11.2
45 and again near an n value of 70. Between these two n
values, the r value which minimizes the equation for thermal
- 1.0 resistance yields a Reynolds number between 2300 and 4000.
0.0007
Since the correlations used are not valid in this regime, such
0 0.0006 - 0.8 r results are viewed as unacceptable. So, between n of about 45
r
and the end of the laminar flow region, the reported gives the
0.0005 - 0.6 highest allowable Reynolds number for laminar flow, 2300.
This yields the lowest thermal resistance with the Reynolds
0.0004 - 0.4 number in the range where the correlations used are accurate.
In the turbulent flow regime, the given I? yields the lowest
0.0003 - 0.2 acceptable Reynolds number for turbulent flow when n is less

0.0002 '
0
I

25 50
I

75
I 1

100
I

125
I

150
'0.0
175
than 70 for the same reason. Since these breaks in slope are
not near the laminar or turbulent minima, there is no effect on
Number of Channels the resulting predicted overall optimal design.
Fig, 3. Thernial resistance as a function of the number of channels for the
Phillips devised a scheme for microchannel heat sink design
heat sink described in Table 111. to include the possibility of turbulent flow and accounted
for hydrodynamic flow development in both regimes, but
maintained the restrictions of r = 1 and a specified aspect
with = 0.32 being the best value. The solid line in the ratio. Phillips used water as the coolant and silicon as the heat
turbulent regime depicts thermal resistance values for turbulent sink material with all properties evaluated at 27C. When the
flow, again with no constraint on r. Here the performance is optimal geometry determined by Phillips is examined using
improved by 32% over that for laminar flow and fixed r, with the equations presented in this paper, excluding the effect of
the optimal value of r= 0.215. thermally developing flow, a thermal resistance is predicted
whose value is within 1% of that given by Phillips. When the
geometry recommended by Phillips is analyzed, accounting for
developing flow, the predicted thermal resistance is lowered
by 18% from the thermally fully developed case.
Only a comparison with his turbulent optimal solutions is
made here to show the effects of mandating r and a. For our
case, the fin length is identical to that of Phillips, but the fin
thickness to channel width ratio (r),and therefore, the aspect
ratio is determined for the best turbulent case.
The pressure drop, volumetric flow rate, and pumping work
are identical to those used by Phillips. The present design has
the same overall exterior dimensions as that of Phillips but
as Table IV shows, improved performance by 21%. The main
reason for this improvement comes from the inclusion of the
effect of thermally developing flow. Additional improvement
comes from the relaxation of the r constraint. The current
design has a much smaller I (0.66 compared to 1 for Phillips),
more channels (19 versus 1I), and consequently substantially
more area available for heat transfer for the same fin length.
It is recognized that the optimal design scheme described
here could lead to a design which could be impractical due
to the channels or fins being too thin to manufacture. This
optimization scheme necessarily incorporates a constraint on
minimum thickness of either fin or channel.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
The governing equations for fluid dynamics and heat trans-
fer have been presented in a generalized, dimensionless form
along with applicable geometrical relationships. These can be
used to determine the dimensions of any microchanneled heat
sink of rectangular coordinates such that the resulting thermal
resistance is minimized.
Comparisons of present results with those obtained by
previous investigations show that unnecessary and undesirable
restraints were imposed on their design procedures (laminar
flow, fixed fin thickness to channel width ratio and/or fixed
aspect ratio) and that relaxation of these restraints leads to
significant improvements in designed thermal resistances.
Depending on whether the pressure drop or pumping power
was maintained the same, the Goldberg heat sink design
improvement ranged from 11.4 to 46.2% in thermal resistance.
The most notable changes occurred in the designed values
of I?(- 0.3) and the number of fins. The redesign of the
Tuckerman and Pease laminar heat sink rendered a much
smaller value for r (0.215 as compared to I), the number
of fins (reduced from 88 to 22), and the nature of the flow
(turbulent rather than laminar) with a resulting decrease in
thermal resistance of 35%. Refinement in Phillips design
effected a decrease in the r value from unity to 0.66 and
more than a 50% increase in the number of fins resulting in a
predicted decrease of 21% in thermal resistance.
REFERENCES
[ I ] D. B. Tuckerman and R. F. W. Pease, High-performance heat sinking
for VLSI, IEEE Electronic Device Lett.. vol. EDL-2. DD. 126-129.
, I
May 1981.
[2] D. B. Tuckerman, Heat transfer micro-structures for integrated cir-
cuits, SRC Tech. Rep. No. 032, SRC Cooperative Research, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 1984.
[3] N. Goldberg, Narrow channel forced air heat sink IEEE Trans. Comp.
Hybrids Manuf. Technol., vol. CHMT-7, pp. 154-159, Mar. 1984.
(41 R. J. Phillips, Micro-channel heat sinks, Advances in Thermal Mod-
eling of Electronic Components and Systems, Volume 2. A. Bar-Cohen
and A. D. Kraus, eds. New York: ASME, Ch. 3, 1990.
[5] A. Bar-Cohen and A. D. Kraus, Advances in Thermal Modeling of
Electronic Components and Systems, Volume 2, New York: ASME, 1990.
[6] M. Mahalingam, Thermal management in semiconductor device pack-
aging, Proc. IEEE, vol. 73, pp. 1396-1404, Sept. 1985.
[7] S. Sasaki and T. Kishimoto, Optimal structure for micro-grooved
cooling fin for high-power LSI devices, Electron. Lett., vol. 22, no. 25,
pp. 1332-1334, 1986.
[8] T. Kishimoto and T. Ohsaki, VLSI packaging technique using liquid-
cooled channels, 36th Electronics Components Conf. P roc., May 1986,
pp. 595-601.
[9] L. T. Hwang, I. Turlik, and A. Reisman, A thermal module design for
advanced packaging, J . Electron. Mat., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 347-355,
May 1987.
[lo] A. Bar-Cohen and M. Jelinek, Optimum arrays of longitudinal, rect-
angular fins in convective heat transfer, Heat Transfer Eng., vol. 6,
no. 3, pp. 68-78, 1986.
[ l l ] C. S. Landram, Computational model for optimizing longitudinal fin
heat transfer in laminar internal flows, Heat Transfer in Electron.
Equipment, vol. 171, pp. 127-134, 1991.
[I21 R. W. Knight, J. S. Goodling, and D. J. Hall, Optimal thermal design of
forced convection heat sinks-Analytical, J . Electron. Pack., vol. 113,
no. 3, pp. 313-321, Sept. 1991.
[13] F. P. Incropera and D. P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
Transfer. New York: Wiley, 1990.
[14] A. Bejan, Convection Heat Transfer. New York: Wiley, pp. 75-82.
1151 W. M . Kays, and M. E. Crawford, Convective Heat and Mass Transfer,
New York McGraw-Hill, 1990.
116) S. Kakac, R. K. Shah, and W. Aung, Handbook of Single-phase
Convective Heat Transfer, New York: Wiley, 1987.
[17] 0. C. Jones, Jr., A n improvement in the calculation of turbulent friction
in rectangular ducts,J. Ffuids Eng., vol. 98, pp. 173-81, June 1976.
[18] V. Gneilinski, New equations for heat and mass transfer in turbulent
pipe and channel flow, Int. Chem. Eng., vol. 16, pp. 359-368, 1976.
[ 191 A. Zukauskas, High-Performance Single-phase Heat Exchangers, J.
Karni, ed. New York: Hemisphere, 1989
Donald J. Hall was born in Columbus, GA, in 1965.
He received the B.S. degree in applied mathematics
and the M.S. degree in mechanical engineering from
Auburn University in 1987 and 1991, respectively.
Since 1991, he has been employed by Compaq
Computer Corporation of Houston, TX, as a me-
chanical engineer.
Mr. Hall is a member of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
Roy W. Knight, for a photograph and biography, please see page 760 of
this issue.
John S. Goodling, for a photograph and biography, please see page 760 of
this issue.
I
Richard C. Jaeger, (S68-M169-SM78-F86), for a photograph and biog-
raphy, please see page 821 of this issue.