A practical plate-fin heat sink model

Unshrouded Plate Fin Heat Sinks for Electronics Cooling: Validation of a Comprehensive Thermal Model and Cost Optimization in Semi-Active Configuration

“…Experimental results and model predictions are compared in Table 3 and Figure 6. It can be noticed that model predictions for R ja values range in the narrow interval −5% to +8% (Root Mean Square (RMS) equal to 5.0%), in good agreement with the accuracy achieved by previous studies [23,40,42]. Therefore, the remarkable similarity between experimental and modeling results ( Figure 6) allows for considering the thermal models presented in Section 2 as an accurate reference for optimizing the plate fins configuration, at least for the considered approach air velocities (v d = 5.6-13.9 m/s).…”

3-D numerical and experimental models for flat and embedded heat pipes applied in high-end VGA card cooling system

“…The pressure drop can be considered as Eq. (1), where f app is the fanning-friction factor, K c and K e are contraction and expansion pressure loss coefficients, V a is the air velocity in the channel, and L f and D h are the fin length and hydraulic diameter of fin, respectively [23]. Eqs.…”

Forced convection on grey cast iron plate-fins: Prediction of the heat transfer coefficient

“…Noticeably, despite the open channel nature of the air flow between fins, the hydraulic diameter, D h , is used as the characteristic length to evaluate both Reynolds and Nusselt numbers (see, e.g. references [23,24]), as Re D h = U ∞ D h /ν f and Nu D h ¼ h c D h =k f , where D h = 4SL/(2L + S), ν f and k f are the air kinematic viscosity and thermal conductivity, respectively. Table 5 shows the Reynolds and Nusselt numbers for different flow velocities, U ∞ , and gap spacing, S. It is observed that Nu D h yields larger variations when compared to the heat transfer coefficient, h c , owing to differences of the characteristic length.…”