4.1 Article

Numerical study of turbulent heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics in a water-cooled minichannel heat sink

Journal

JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC PACKAGING
Volume 129, Issue 3, Pages 247-255

Publisher

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.2753887

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the rapid development of the Information Technology (IT) industry, the heat flux in integrated circuit (IQ chips cooled by air has almost reached its limit at about 100 W/cm(2). Some applications in high technology industries require heat fluxes well beyond such a limitation. Therefore, the search for a more efficient cooling technology becomes one of the bottleneck problems of the further development of the IT industry. The microchannel flow geometry offers a large surface area of heat transfer and a high convective heat transfer coefficient. However, it has been hard to implement because of its very high pressure head required to pump the coolant fluid through the channels. A normal channel size could not give high heat flux, although the pressure drop is very small. A minichannel can be used in a heat sink with quite a high heat flux and a mild pressure loss. A minichannel heat sink with bottom size of 20 mm X 20 mm is analyzed numerically for the single-phase turbulent flow of water as a coolant through small hydraulic diameters. A constant heat flux boundary condition is assumed. The effect of channel dimensions, channel wall thickness, bottom thickness, and inlet velocity on. the pressure drop, temperature difference, and maximum allowable heat flux are presented. The results indicate that a narrow and deep channel with thin bottom thickness and relatively thin channel wall thickness results in improved heat transfer performance with a relatively high but acceptable pressure drop. A nearly optimized structure of heat sink is found that can cool a chip with heat flux of 350 W/cm(2) at a pumping power of 0.314 W.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available