142 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS AND PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 24, NO.
2, JUNE 2001
Modeling of the Thermal and Hydraulic Performance
of Plate Fin, Strip Fin, and Pin Fin Heat
Sinks—Influence of Flow Bypass
Hans Jonsson and Bahram Moshfegh
Abstract—Tests have been conducted in a wind tunnel with seven
types of heat sinks including plate fin, strip fin, and pin fin heat
sinks. In the case of strip fin, and pin fin heat sinks, both in-line
and staggered arrays have been studied. The pin fin heat sinks had
circular and square cross-sections. For each type, tests were run
with fin heights ( ) of 10, 15, and 20 mm while the heat sink width
( ) was kept constant and equal to 52.8 mm. In total, 42 different
heat sinks were tested. The width of the wind tunnel duct ( ) [7], Iwasaki et al. [8], Sata et al. [9], and Jonsson and Moshfegh
was varied in such a way that results were obtained for = [10], [11]. The investigators have utilized experimental and/or
0 84, 0.53, and 0.33. The wind tunnel height ( ) was varied sim-
ilarly, and data were recorded for = 1, 0.67, and 0.33
while the duct Reynolds number was varied between 2 000 through
16 500.
An empirical bypass correlation has been developed for the dif-
ferent fin designs. The correlation predicts the Nusselt number
and the dimensionless pressure drop and takes into account the
influence of duct height, duct width, fin height, fin thickness, and
fin-to-fin distance. The correlation parameters are individual for
each fin design. Further, a physical bypass model for plate fin heat
sinks has been developed to describe the bypass effect.
Index Terms—Bypass, circular, experimental, heat sink, physical
model, pin fin, plate fin, pressure drop, square, strip fin, thermal
resistance.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE performance of passive heat sinks in bypass situations
has been the focus of many investigations in recent years,
and the subject has been treated both theoretically, numerically,
and experimentally. Most of the theoretical investigations have
treated laminar flow cases for plate fin heat sinks, while inves-
tigations of strip fin and pin fin heat sinks have been mainly
numerical, and experimental. The increased number of numer-
ical investigations is of course due to the evolution of the many
and powerful commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
Manuscript received October 16, 2000; revised February 26, 2001. This work
was recommended for publication by Associate Editor J. R. Culham upon eval-
uation of the reviewers’ comments. This work was presented at the 7th Interso-
ciety Conference on Thermal, Mechanical, and Thermomechanical Phenomena
in Electronic Systems (ITHERM 2000), Las Vegas, NV, May 23-26, 2000. This
work was supported by Ericsson Telecom, Ericsson Radio Systems, Ericsson
Components, Stockholm, Sweden, the Swedish National Board for Industrial
and Technical Development (NUTEK), Stockholm, Sweden, and KK-stiftelsen,
Stockholm, Sweden.
H. Jonsson is with the Department of Energy Technology, Division of Applied
Thermodynamics and Refrigeration, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
SE-100 44, Sweden (e-mail: hansj@thermo.kth.se).
H. Jonsson and B. Moshfegh are with the Division of Energy and Mechanical
Engineering, Department of Technology, University of Gävle, Gävle SE-801 76,
Sweden.
Publisher Item Identifier S 1521-3331(01)04790-0.
1521–3331/01$10.00 ©2001 IEEE
codes. However, in order to reduce computational time, interest
has also turned to development of compact models of the dif-
ferent heat sink types.
The performance of plate fin heat sinks have been studied
extensively by Sparrow and co-workers [1]–[3], Kadle and
Sparrow [4], Lau and Mahajan [5], Wirtz and co-workers [6],
numerical methods for both laminar and turbulent flow regimes.
The heat transfer enhancement by introducing strip fins
has been treated by Sparrow and co-workers [12], [13], who
treated laminar flow cases numerically. Boesmans et al. [14],
performed an experimental comparison between plate fin heat
sinks and staggered strip fin heat sinks. Chapman et al. [15],
compared a strip fin heat sink with a continuous fin heat sink
in open and confined configurations. Sathyamurthy et al. [16]
compared a plate fin heat sink with a staggered strip fin heat
sink both numerically and experimentally.
The performance of pin fin heat sinks has also been treated in
the literature. Kameoka et al. [17], Metzger et al. [18], Shaukat-
ullah and Gaynes [19] and Azar and Mandrone [20], Maudgal
and Sunderland [21], and Chyu et al. [22] have all treated their
thermal performance. However, the effect of airflow bypass was
not treated primarily. Sparrow and Ramsey [23], and Chapman
et al. [15], investigated the bypass influence on pin fin heat sink
performance. Jonsson and Moshfegh [24], investigated the per-
formance of pin fin heat sinks numerically.
In previous publications the first author has developed two
empirical bypass correlations, Jonsson and Palm [25], [26].
Generally, the agreement between experimental data and the
correlations were good, the thermal resistance was within
and the pressure drop was within from experi-
mental data respectively. The correlations were developed for
plate fin and pin fin heat sinks. However, in the case of pin
fin heat sinks (Jonsson and Palm [25]) the influence of fin
height, and staggered arrays was not included, and in the case
of plate fin and strip fin heat sinks (Jonsson and Palm [26]) the
influence of the fin-to-fin distance was not studied.
In this paper, experimental data for plate fin, strip fin, and
pin fin heat sinks is presented. In total, 42 different heat sinks
were tested (see Table I). By varying the fin height, fin-to-fin
distance, and the tip and lateral clearance, a substantial data base
has been established, each heat sink was tested in seven different
wind tunnel ducts. From this database, empirical correlations of
how the thermal and hydraulic performance of the heat sinks is
affected by (mainly) the above mentioned parameters have been
JONSSON AND MOSHFEGH: THERMAL AND HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF PLATE FIN, STRIP FIN, AND PIN FIN HEAT SINKS 143

TABLE I
DIMENSIONS OF TESTED HEAT SINKS

derived. Further, a physical bypass model for plate fin heat sinks
has been developed to describe the bypass effect.
II. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
A. Heat Sinks
Seven different fin designs have been tested including plate
fin heat sinks, strip fin heat sinks in both in-line and staggered
arrays, circular pin fin and square pin fin heat sinks (both in-line
and staggered arrays) Fig. 1. For each fin design, tests were run
with three different fin heights and two different fin-to-fin dis-
tances of each fin height. In total, 42 heat sinks were tested. The
base area, and the fin thickness were the same for all tested heat
sinks. The dimensions of the heat sinks are shown in Table I.
The tested heat sinks were milled from solid aluminum
(thermal conductivity W/(m K)) and no additional surface
treatment was applied. The heat sinks were heated by electrical
heaters (MINCO aluminum-backed Thermofoil™ heaters with
#10 pressure-sensitive adhesive). The bottom of the heated foil
was insulated with 25 mm of Polystyrene (thermal conductivity
W/(m K)). The heat sinks were mounted at the bottom
144 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS AND PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 24, NO. 2, JUNE 2001

Fig. 2. Vertical cut view of heat sink, heated foil, and insulation.

Fig. 1. Plate fin heat sink (a), strip fin heat sinks with in-line, (b) and staggered,
(c) arrays, circular pin fin heat sinks, (in-line (d) and staggered (e) arrays), and
square pin fin heat sinks (in-line (f) and staggered (g) arrays).

of the wind tunnel duct in such a way that the fin base was flush
with the duct wall (Fig. 2). The reason for not using two heat
sinks mounted back-to-back is that all heat sinks were custom
made, and the cost for manufacturing twice as many heat sinks
would have been too large.
Fig. 3. Top view of wind tunnel.
B. Wind Tunnel
The general layout of the wind tunnel is shown in Figs. 3
and 4. The wind tunnel walls are made of Plexiglass [thermal
conductivity W/(m K)]. The air velocity is controlled by
frequency regulation of the electric power driving the fan.
The wind tunnel cross-sectional area at the measurement
section can be varied by moving the side walls and the ceiling
(Fig. 5). Tests were performed with duct configurations ac-
cording to Table II. For some of the heat sinks the values
of and 1 deviated slightly from the values in

Table II due to small deviations in and (see Table I).

The conduction heat losses through the wind tunnel bottom
wall (Fig. 2), i.e., the heat which was not dissipated through
Fig. 4. Side view of measurement section.
the heat sink, were estimated by a finite element calculation for
which the ANSYS 5.6 code was used. For this estimation, the
heat transfer coefficient (HTC) on the inside of the wind tunnel
wall was calculated as the average HTC for forced convection
over a plane surface. The HTC on the outside of the wind tunnel
wall was calculated as the average HTC for free convection from
a heated horizontal plate facing downward. The uncertainty in
the heat loss estimation was assumed to 5%.
Fig. 5. Front view of measurement section.
C. Measurement Equipment
All temperatures were measured with type thermocou- TABLE II
ples with a specified accuracy of C. However, when WIND TUNNEL DUCT CONFIGURATIONS
calibrating the thermocouples, an accuracy in temperature
1where
B base width of heat sink [m], see Table I;
CB width of wind tunnel duct [m];
H fin height [m], see Table I;
CH height of wind tunnel duct [m].
JONSSON AND MOSHFEGH: THERMAL AND HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF PLATE FIN, STRIP FIN, AND PIN FIN HEAT SINKS 145

difference of less than C was observed. The heat sink TABLE III
base temperature was measured by averaging the reading of ERROR LIMITS FOR ALL THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA
four symmetrically positioned thermocouples (placed at each
corner of the heat sink, 10 mm from the edges).
The pressure drop over the heat sinks was measured using
two pressure taps positioned 50 mm upstream and downstream
of the heat sink respectively. The taps were connected to Au-
totran 700D pressure transducers. Three different transducers where
were used with the full scale readings of 100, 62, and 25 Pa de- heat dissipation [W];
pending on the occurring pressure drop. The maximum error, ac- total heat transfer area of heat sink [m ];
cording to the manufacturer, is of the full scale reading. temperature at heat sink base [ C];
The volumetric air flow rate was measured by a laminar flow temperature at the wind tunnel inlet [ C].
element with a total maximum error (including the pressure The thermal resistance, can be calculated by
transducer) of of reading.
The supplied heat was calculated by measuring the voltage K
(2)
over, and the current through, the electrically heated foil. For W
these measurements a Fluke 45 dual multimeter was used, and
In order to better reflect the actual velocity in the wind tunnel
the maximum error was estimated to of reading.
duct, the velocity is calculated using the effective fluid flow area,
The uncertainties in the experiments are discussed in detail
. The authors have investigated different definitions
in Jonsson [27], and for the experimental data presented here,
of the velocity and the present one was found to be the most
the maximum error , and the probable overall uncertainty ,
suitable. The average air velocity is hence calculated as
i.e., the error limits for a 95% confidence level, are shown in
Table III. m
The large error limits for the pressure drop are due to the in- (3)
s
accuracy in measuring small pressure drops. In fact, all pressure
drop readings smaller than 0.5 Pa have been discarded. where
volumetric air flow rate at standard conditions (101.3
kPa, 21.2 C) [m /s];
III. TEST PROCEDURE
wind tunnel cross sectional area at the test section
The tests were started by adjusting the velocity to a value cor- ( ) [m ];
responding to ( defined by (4), then the frontal area of the fins (see Table I, [m ]).
electrical circuit supplying the heated foil was closed, producing The duct Reynolds number, , is defined as
a heat load of 10 W. The temperatures were monitored at 30-s in-
tervals until conditions were at steady state. The conditions were - (4)
assumed steady state when the temperatures of each of the four
thermocouples in the heat sink base changed less than 0.05 C where
between two consecutive readings. The error in heat dissipation hydraulic diameter of the wind tunnel (
due to this assumption is very small, for the worst case it is less ) [m];
than 0.5%. At steady state, five sets of data were acquired auto- kinematic viscosity of air [m /s].
matically at 30-second intervals. The velocity was then reduced In order to represent the heat transfer coefficient in a dimen-
to a value corresponding to and the temperatures sionless way, the Nusselt number, , is defined as
were monitored until conditions were at steady state; at this time
the data acquisition procedure was repeated. The procedure of - (5)
reducing the velocity was repeated until the data corresponding
to equal to 6700, 5000, and 3350 was recorded as well. where
(The above mentioned Reynolds numbers roughly corresponds heat sink base plate length in flow direction [m];
to the velocities of 4, 3, 2, 1.5, and 1 m/s for a duct having a thermal conductivity of air [W/(m K)].
height of 30 mm and a width of 160 mm.) The air temperature The choice of as the characteristic length scale for the Nus-
at the wind tunnel inlet was held at approximately 20 C. During selt number, Nu, was made due to the fact that was almost
tests, deviations from the above mentioned Reynolds numbers equal for all heat sinks. Hence, represents the variation in
occurred due to practical reasons. the heat transfer coefficient only.
The dimensionless pressure drop is defined as
IV. DATA REDUCTION
The heat transfer coefficient, , (assuming 100% fin effi- - (6)
ciency) is calculated as
where
W pressure drop [Pa];
(1)
m K density of air [kg/m ].
146 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS AND PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 24, NO. 2, JUNE 2001

Fig. 6. Fluid flow resistance net.

V. EMPIRICAL BYPASS CORRELATION

In order to describe the influence of airflow bypass on the per-
formance of heat sinks, the first author has developed two em- Fig. 7. Thermal behavior of heat sinks with H = 10 mm, B = 52:8 mm,
 = 5 mm in a wind tunnel duct with zero bypass (CH = 10 mm, CB =
pirical bypass correlations, Jonsson and Palm [25], [26]. These 63 mm).
correlations had generally good agreement to experimental data,
the thermal resistance was within and the pressure drop
was within from experimental data respectively. The cor-
relations were developed for plate fin, strip fin, and pin fin heat
sinks. However, in the case of pin fin heat sinks (Jonsson and
Palm [25]) the influence of fin height and staggered arrays was
not included, and in the case of plate fin and strip fin heat sinks
(Jonsson and Palm [26]) the influence of fin-to-fin distance was
not studied.
The present correlations predict the Nusselt number, ,
and the dimensionless pressure drop, , as functions of the in-
vestigated parameters: , , , , and .
Although the equations are the same for all types of heat sinks,
the correlation parameters (constants and exponents) are spe-
cific for each type of heat sink. Further, the correlations are not
valid for the zero bypass ducts, i.e., , and Fig. 8. Hydraulic behavior of heat sinks with H = 10 mm, B = 52:8 mm,
 = 5 mm in a wind tunnel duct with zero bypass (CH = 10 mm, CB =
63 mm).

, at the inlet; Frictional pressure drop, ; and Expansion

pressure drop, , at the outlet. The duct pressure drop up-
- (7) stream and downstream of the heat sink has been included to
enable comparison with experimental data.
The frictional pressure drop is calculated

[Pa] (10)
- (8)
where
It should also be observed that there is a relation between , eensity of air [kg/m ];
, and velocity [m/s];
duct length [m];
m (9) hydraulic diameter [m];
friction factor.
where is the number of fins in the spanwise direction. The hydraulic diameters are given by

VI. PHYSICAL BYPASS MODEL (wind tunnel duct)

(heat sink channel)
Described below is a simplified and slightly modified version
(bypass channel).
of the bypass model as presented by Butterbaugh and Kang [28].
In this model, valid for plate fin heat sinks, the airflow by- The friction factor is calculated as
pass is calculated by balancing the pressure drop for the interfin
flow path to that of the bypass flow path, Fig. 6. Each flow path for
has three pressure drop mechanisms: Contraction pressure drop, for .
JONSSON AND MOSHFEGH: THERMAL AND HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF PLATE FIN, STRIP FIN, AND PIN FIN HEAT SINKS 147

TABLE IV
LIMITS WITHIN WHICH THE CORRELATIONS ARE VALID [Pa]
(12)

where

number of fins.

The expressions for the contraction and expansion pressure

drops are derived from diagrams in Kays and London [29]. The
expressions are valid for “short” plate fin heat sinks, where the
boundary layers are developing; for interrupted wall heat ex-
changers, where the boundary layers seldom are fully devel-
oped; and for “long” plate fin heat sinks under fully developed
conditions.

VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Performance in Ducts with Zero Bypass
As can be seen in Fig. 7, the thermal resistance for all heat
sinks are converging at high Reynolds numbers except for the
plate fin heat sink. At the same time, the pressure drop for all
heat sinks are diverging with increasing Reynolds numbers, see
Fig. 8. For increasing Reynolds number the increase in pressure
drop is larger for the pin fin heat sinks as compared to the strip
fin and plate fin heat sinks while the decrease in thermal resis-
tance is marginal. Consequently it is not beneficial to use pin fin
heat sinks at high Reynolds numbers.
Fig. 9. Evaluation of the Nusselt number correlation.
Further, three important observations can be made in Fig. 8.
First, the length of the fins in the flow direction have a strong
influence on the pressure drop. Longer fins results in lower pres-
sure drop. This is explained by the fact that the plate fin heat sink
only have one inlet contraction and one outlet expansion while
all the other heat sink types have multiple contractions and ex-
pansions as well as redevelopment of the boundary layers thus
causing a higher pressure drop. The second observation regards
the orientation of the fins. Generally, a staggered array results
in a larger pressure drop than an in-line array. Third, the shape
of the pins have some influence. The circular pins have lower
pressure drop compared to the square pins. This is very apparent
when comparing the staggered arrays for the square pin and the
circular pin fin heat sinks. For in-line array, this behavior is not
as pronounced.

B. Evaluation of the Empirical Bypass Correlation

The constants and exponents in (7) and (8) (the correlation pa-
rameters) were estimated using nonlinear regression for which
the code STATISTICA 4.5 [30] was utilized. The convergence
criteria was set to a relative error of and convergence was
Fig. 10. Evaluation of the dimensionless pressure drop correlation. reached after 100 iterations typically. The correlations are valid
within the ranges given in Table IV.
The correlation parameters are provided in Table V. The per-
The contraction pressure drop, , and the expansion pres-
formance of the correlations are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. As can
sure drop, , are calculated
be seen, the Nusselt number, , is predicted quite well. The
correlation yield predictions that are almost as good as the
[Pa] correlation. This is probably due to the inaccuracy in pres-
(11) sure drop measurement at low pressure drops. In fact, the experi-
148 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS AND PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 24, NO. 2, JUNE 2001
TABLE V
CORRELATION PARAMETERS
Fig. 11. Comparison between experimental data for a plate fin heat sink with
 = 5 mm and the physical bypass model H=CH = 0:67.
Fig. 12. Comparison between experimental data for a plate fin heat sink with
 = 5 mm and the physical bypass model H=CH = 0:33.
mental data within the error limit of the experimental equipment
(pressure transducer) has been discarded. There is also reason to
believe that experimental data just above the error limit of the
pressure transducer may have large errors inherent.
In Table V, the correlation parameters are shown. For the pre-
diction of the Nusselt number, two parameters are dominant: the
Reynolds number and the relative duct height, . For the
dimensionless pressure drop all investigated parameters are im-
portant.
The performance of the correlations can be determined by
observing the variance of the correlation, these values are
also shown in Table V. The performance of the correlations can
also be studied in Figs. 9 and 10.
C. Evaluation of the Physical Bypass Model
In Figs. 11 and 12 the physical bypass model is compared
with experimental data for plate fin heat sinks. From an en-
gineering point of view the agreement with experimental data
is rather good considering the simplicity of the model. As can
be seen, the model underpredicts the experimental data and at
present, these differences are not quite clear to the authors. One
possible explanation is that the model utilizes friction factors
for fully developed flow while the flow in the experiments most
likely is developing. Generally, the agreement is best at large
pressure drops which probably is due to the inaccuracy in mea-
suring small pressure drops.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
An empirical bypass correlation has been developed for seven
different fin designs including plate fin, in-line and staggered
strip fin heat sinks, and circular and square pin fin heat sinks ar-
ranged in both in-line and staggered arrays. The correlation pre-
dicts the Nusselt number and the dimensionless pressure drop
and takes into account the influence of duct height, duct width,
fin height, fin thickness, and fin-to-fin distance. The correlation
parameters are specific for each fin type. Further, a physical by-
pass model for plate fin heat sinks has been developed to de-
scribe the bypass effect.
At high Reynolds numbers in zero bypass ducts, the pressure
drop is larger for the pin fin heat sinks as compared to the strip
fin heat sinks while the difference in thermal resistance is mar-
ginal. Consequently it is not beneficial to use pin fin heat sinks
at high Reynolds Numbers.
The empirical correlations give reasonably good agreement.
The Nusselt number is predicted with quite good accuracy.
The prediction of the dimensionless pressure drop should be
improved somewhat in order to make it useful in the design
process. The Reynolds number and the relative duct height,
, have the largest influence on the prediction of the
Nusselt number while all investigated parameters are important
for the prediction of the dimensionless pressure drop.
The physical bypass model for plate fin heat sinks is in rather
good agreement with experimental data considering the sim-
plicity of the model. A further extension of the physical bypass
model will incorporate other fin designs.
REFERENCES
[1] E. M. Sparrow, B. R. Baliga, and S. V. Patankar, “Forced convection
heat transfer from a shrouded fin array with and without tip clearance,”
ASME J. Heat Transf., vol. 100, pp. 572–579, Nov. 1978.
[2] E. M. Sparrow and T. J. Beckey, “Pressure drop characteristics for
a shrouded longitudinal-fin array with tip clearance,” ASME J. Heat
Transf., vol. 103, pp. 393–395, May 1981.
[3] E. M. Sparrow and D. S. Kadle, “Effect of tip-to-shroud clearance on
turbulent heat transfer from a shrouded, longitudinal fin array,” ASME
J. Heat Transf., vol. 108, pp. 519–524, Aug. 1986.
[4] D. S. Kadle and E. M. Sparrow, “Numerical and experimental study of
turbulent heat transfer and fluid flow in longitudinal fin arrays,” ASME
J. Heat Transf., vol. 108, pp. 16–23, Feb. 1986.
[5] K. S. Lau and R. L. Mahajan, “Effects of tip clearance and fin density on
the performance of heat sinks for VLSI packages,” IEEE Trans. Comp.,
Hybrids, Manufact. Technol., vol. 12, pp. 756–765, Dec. 1989.
JONSSON AND MOSHFEGH: THERMAL AND HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF PLATE FIN, STRIP FIN, AND PIN FIN HEAT SINKS
[6] R. A. Wirtz and W. Chen, “Longitudinal fin heat sink performance in
arrays of low-profile electronic packages,” Adv. Electron. Packag., vol.
EEP-4–2, pp. 809–817, 1993.
[7] R. A. Wirtz, W. Chen, and R. Zhou, “Effect of flow bypass on the perfor-
mance of longitudinal fin heat sinks,” ASME J. Electron. Packag., vol.
116, pp. 206–211, Sept. 1994.
[8] H. Iwasaki, T. Sasaki, and M. Ishizuka, “Cooling performance of plate
fins for multichip modules,” in Proc. 1994 InterSoc. Conf. Thermal
Phenom. Electron. Syst., 1994, pp. 144–147.
[9] Y. Sata, H. Iwasaki, and M. Ishizuka, “Development of prediction tech-
nique for cooling performance of finned heat sink in uniform flow,” in
Proc. 1996 InterSoc. Conf. Thermal Phenom. Electron. Syst., 1996, pp.
108–114.
[10] H. Jonsson and B. Moshfegh, “Influence of fin spacing, fin thickness,
and inlet velocity on the performance of plate fin heat sinks under
varying bypass conditions using CFD,” Int. J. Heat Exchangers
(IJHEX), vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 177–196, 2000.
[11] , “Modeling and characterization of plate fin heat sinks under
bypass flow conditions using computational fluid dynamics methods,”
ASME J. Electron. Packag., to be published.
[12] E. M. Sparrow, B. R. Baliga, and S. V. Patankar, “Heat transfer and fluid
flow analysis of interrupted-wall channels, with application to heat ex-
changers,” ASME J. Heat Transf., pp. 4–11, Febr. 1977.
[13] E. M. Sparrow and C. H. Liu, “Heat-transfer, pressure-drop and per-
formance relationships for in-line, staggered, and continuous plate heat
exchangers,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., vol. 22, pp. 1613–1625, 1979.
[14] B. Boesmans, F. Christiaens, J. Berghmans, and E. Beyne, “Design
of an optimal heat-sink geometry for forced convection air cooling of
multi-chip modules,” in Proc. Eurotherm Seminar 29 “Thermal Manag.
of Electron. Syst.”, Delft, The Netherlands, June 14–16, 1993.
[15] C. L. Chapman, S. Lee, and B. L. Schmidt, “Thermal performance of
an elliptical pin fin heat sink,” in Proc. 10th IEEE Semi-Therm Symp.,
1994, pp. 24–31.
[16] P. Sathyamurthy, P. W. Runstadler, and S. Lee, “Numerical and exper-
imental evaluation of planar and staggered heat sinks,” in Proc. 1996
InterSoc. Conf. Thermal Phenom. Electron. Syst., 1996, pp. 132–139.
[17] T. Kameoka, T. Sakamoto, and K. Nakamura, “An experimental inves-
tigation on heat transfer by pin fins fixed on a plate,” Bull Univ. Osaka
Pref. A (Jpn.), vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 17–34, 1970.
[18] D. E. Metzger, C. S. Fan, and S. W. Haley, “Effects of pin shape and
array orientation on heat transfer and pressure loss in pin fin arrays,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, vol. 106, pp. 252–257, Jan. 1984.
[19] H. Shaukatullah and M. A. Gaynes, “Effect of pin fin heat sink size
on thermal performance of surface mount plastic quad flat packs,” in
Proc. 1994 Int. Electron. Packag. Conf., Atlanta, GA, Sept. 25–28, pp.
232–241.
[20] K. Azar and C. D. Mandrone, “Effect of pin fin density of the thermal
performance of unshrouded pin fin heat sinks,” ASME J. Electron.
Packag., vol. 116, pp. 306–309, Dec. 1994.
[21] V. K. Maudgal and J. E. Sunderland, “Forced convection heat transfer
from staggered pin fin arrays,” in Proc. Nat. Heat Transf. Conf., vol. 7,
1996, HTD-Vol. 329, pp. 35–44.
[22] M. K. Chyu, Y. Hsing, V. Natarajan, and J. S. Chiou, “Effects of per-
pendicular flow entry on convective heat (mass) transfer from pin-fin
arrays,” in Proc. Nat. Heat Transf. Conf., vol. 7, 1996, pp. 45–52.
149
[23] E. M. Sparrow and J. W. Ramsey, “Heat transfer and pressure drop for
a staggered wall-attached array of cylinders with tip clearance,” Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf., vol. 21, pp. 1369–1377, 1978.
[24] H. Jonsson and B. Moshfegh, “CFD modeling of the cooling perfor-
mance of pin fin heat sinks under bypass flow conditions,” in Proc. In-
terPACK’01, Kauai, HI, July 8–13, 2001.
[25] H. Jonsson and B. Palm, “Influence of airflow bypass on the thermal
performance and pressure drop of plate fin and pin fin heat sinks for
electronics cooling,” in Proc. Eurotherm Sem. 58, Nantes, France, Sept.
24–26, 1997, pp. 44–50.
[26] , “Thermal and hydraulic behavior of plate fin and strip fin heat
sinks under varying bypass conditions,” IEEE Trans. Comp. Packag.
Technol., vol. 23, pp. 47–54, Mar. 2000.
[27] H. Jonsson, “Turbulent forced convection air cooling of electronics with
heat sinks under flow bypass conditions,” Doctoral thesis, Dept. Energy
Technol., Royal Inst. Technol., Stockholm, Sweden, 2001.
[28] M. A. Butterbaugh and S. S. Kang, “Effect of airflow bypass on the
performance of heat sinks in electronic cooling,” Adv. Electron. Packag.,
vol. EEP-10–2, pp. 843–848, 1995.
[29] W. M. Kays and A. L. London, Compact Heat Exchangers. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1964.
[30] STATISTICA 4.5, StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK 74104, 1993.
Hans Jonsson received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering
from the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, in 1995 and 2000,
respectively.
Since 1998, he has also been with the Division of Energy and Mechanical
Engineering, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden. His research interests are in
turbulent forced convection air cooling of electronics, focusing on heat sink de-
sign under bypass flow conditions.
Bahram Moshfegh received the Ph.D. degree in heat transfer from the Depart-
ment of Mechanical Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, in
1992.
Presently, he is head of Division of Energy and Mechanical Engineering, De-
partment of Technology, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden. He has rather
wide research interests, and has been active in many areas of fluid flow and heat
transfer, e.g., heat conduction, super insulation, phase change process, contact
heat transfer, natural and forced convection, as well as radiation heat transfer.
His main research interests are mathematical modeling of fluid flow and heat
transfer in closed spaces and channels with applications to heat transfer in build-
ings, air movement in spaces, cooling of electronic components and renewable
energy as well as validation of numerical results by means of applying different
advanced experimental techniques for velocity and temperature measurements.
He is involved in many scientific tasks such as referee for international journals
and conferences, as well as being a frequent invited speaker, visiting professor,
member of examination committees, and varoius advisory committees.